You know things, and then you put them together, and then you see your blind spots. When I started engaging on Biblioblogs, two months ago, my whole thought about academic rigor was that it's proper and responsible and logical and necessary for producing good scholarship. That's all. Now, however, I'm starting to wonder if scholars promote rigor just to defend the faith from unbelievers. (See posts today by Jim West, NT Wrong, Iyov and Jim again.) Somebody help me out here - is it just Jim? ;)
I guess if you don't go out to fight, they can't defeat you! But I want more. And for the record, I never once, right up through now, felt the need to write for unbelievers. Interact and enjoy conversation, yes. But never convince or refute. I'm doing what I'm doing for God's people of faith. But I'll keep on trying to understand all of Scholar-dom as well.
UPDATE (8/1/08): This post by Michael Halcomb is a nice wrap up to my feelings on the four above.
Gospel Origin Sequence
Regarding increasing degrees of literary awareness...
(See previous archives as well as yesterday's post.)
(1) Matthew's Notes are a more primitive form than Mark's Gospel, which was still basically just sequence of event composition (what literacy experts sometimes call "a bed-to-bed story").
(2) Mark's Gospel, in turn, is less sophisticated than Luke's work. Luke's is longer. Luke had more complex reasons for what to include or leave out. Luke's "travelogue" shows evidence of slight content re-arranging. And Luke shows he had a broad set of purposes for his composition as a whole.
(3) But Matthew's Gospel is arguably the most sophisticated literary achievement of all three. The deliberate theological argumentation; the consistent running thematic motifs; the complex re-arrangement of passages on Jesus' life and certain teaching passages; the conscious breaking of chronology according to specific rules and within a peculiar ethic for doing so justly; the modification of the Lord's Jewish Genealogy to suit certain Jewish styles and interests; and above all the deep, abiding concern for a specific audience and a specific purpose in writing. Luke's content may be as intricate practically as Matthew's is theologically, but Matthew's work as a pure composition is a tremendous advancement in literary awareness and achievement. Matthew's purpose in writing is multi-faceted, but each sub-purpose integrates seamlessly into his larger aim. By contrast, Luke's variety of purposes-for-writing seem tacked on along the way.
Point: the Gospel's relative degree of literary sophistication, as individual compositions, may be considered as strong evidence of their historical 'publication' in sequence - especially once we consider that the Gospel Authors must have influenced one another in person, as authors. (That is, they did not influence one another merely as text transcribers.)
See also yesterday's post.
(See previous archives as well as yesterday's post.)
(1) Matthew's Notes are a more primitive form than Mark's Gospel, which was still basically just sequence of event composition (what literacy experts sometimes call "a bed-to-bed story").
(2) Mark's Gospel, in turn, is less sophisticated than Luke's work. Luke's is longer. Luke had more complex reasons for what to include or leave out. Luke's "travelogue" shows evidence of slight content re-arranging. And Luke shows he had a broad set of purposes for his composition as a whole.
(3) But Matthew's Gospel is arguably the most sophisticated literary achievement of all three. The deliberate theological argumentation; the consistent running thematic motifs; the complex re-arrangement of passages on Jesus' life and certain teaching passages; the conscious breaking of chronology according to specific rules and within a peculiar ethic for doing so justly; the modification of the Lord's Jewish Genealogy to suit certain Jewish styles and interests; and above all the deep, abiding concern for a specific audience and a specific purpose in writing. Luke's content may be as intricate practically as Matthew's is theologically, but Matthew's work as a pure composition is a tremendous advancement in literary awareness and achievement. Matthew's purpose in writing is multi-faceted, but each sub-purpose integrates seamlessly into his larger aim. By contrast, Luke's variety of purposes-for-writing seem tacked on along the way.
Point: the Gospel's relative degree of literary sophistication, as individual compositions, may be considered as strong evidence of their historical 'publication' in sequence - especially once we consider that the Gospel Authors must have influenced one another in person, as authors. (That is, they did not influence one another merely as text transcribers.)
See also yesterday's post.
Paul and the Gospels
I'm still weighing my proposed scenario of Gospel Origins in which Matthew's Notes were used by both Mark and Luke before Matthew revised his own notes into a compete work. One thing I like about that is it agrees with Augustine who (I'm told) said Matthew wrote first, but also with the scholarship suggesting Mark's Gospel was completed first. (But I need to hunt down that Augustine reference soon. Anyone have a link or a reference?)
Another thing I like about this scenario is the influence of Paul. (On the process, not the text.) As a way of building on the scenario so far, here's some strong circumstancial evidence for Paul's influence on the formation of the "synoptic" gospels.
Mark’s Gospel was finished before Peter left for Greece in 53 AD and both Luke and Matthew had finished their Gospels by 61 or 62 AD. Thus, all three Gospels were “published” within a ten year window. The fact that this window covers Paul’s most prolific travel years is as non-coincidental as it was fortunate. But how, specifically, did Paul influence each Gospel writer?
We already know Paul was a direct influence on Mark and Luke. Mark's Gospel was born AFTER Paul called him to Galatia for his ability to give testimony as an eyewitness of the Lord's life and resurrection. So Paul actively worked Mark towards a practical mindset of engaging others to tell them what he knew. Writing was simply one mode Mark decided to do that in!
Likewise, we know how intertwined Paul's ministry was in Luke's life experience. Philippi did not get a letter during Luke's years there, but Paul had written seven letters by the time of his Caesarean imprisonment. And Luke had just spent weeks on a boat with Paul where they had little to do other than talk to each other. In fact, Luke saw Paul write his letter to Timothy and hand it to the young man. Luke also saw the effect of that letter when the new Ephesian elders met Paul on the beach. And that was just before Luke conceived his own writing project! (This timing is NOT coincidental.)
So Luke's degree of literary awareness would NOT have been at such an activatable threshold without the letter writing experience and strong communicative drive of the Apostle Paul. Luke's imagination for the strategic opportunities that written text could create in real life was very possibly nonexistent before his boat ride to Israel with Paul.
Obviously Luke knew how to read and write before knowing Paul... but how much current literature had he seen that interacted with its contemporary readers and caused dramatic changes in their lives? The Illiad and the Odyssey don't do that. Neither does any other text Luke was likely to have used while becoming literate, at whatever age.
Literary awareness, skill and effectiveness isn't just a matter of grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Style and organization are a whole other level. And strategic publication directed towards causing specific spiritual, social, political and legal results? That's a leap as big as Neil Armstrong's little hops on the moon!
In any scenario, Paul influenced Luke's literacy awareness in multiple aspects, to a very high degree. It should go without saying Paul was also one of Luke's sources and that Paul was personally available for advice, feedback and editorial assistance during Luke's project.
So that's Mark & Luke. What about Matthew?
If Matthew was content with his Notes Collection before he saw Mark and Luke's work, then Paul absolutely nudged Matthew into action, indirectly, just by influencing Mark & Luke.
We can also build a plausible case that Paul (from Caesarea) either met with Matthew or said things to others that were passed on to Matthew. If Luke visited Paul in prison at Caesarea even once, Luke would have shared with Paul what he was working on. Paul either knew about Matthew's notes from long ago or he'd heard about them about this time. Many people could have told Luke to go find Matthew's notes. But Paul could have given Luke some advice meant specifically for Matthew.
At the absolute least, wherever Matthew was living in Israel at the time, he could NOT have missed hearing the news that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and sent to Caesarea. But if Matthew didn't get to Caesarea, Luke most likely found a way to get to Matthew. It's certain at least that Luke had Matthew up high on his list of eyewitnesses to interview.
Now that all may be mostly speculation. But if Luke met with Matthew - which is likely, given the amount of "new research" Matthew somehow picked up after Luke's visit - then they absolutely would have compared notes and talked a bit about their respective writing projects. It is entirely possible that Luke personally nudged Matthew into considering a complete Gospel project. Of course, there is less ground to speculate that Matthew visited Paul in Caesarea, but it's just as possible as not.
In any of these scenarios, Paul was either directly or indirectly responsible for helping Matthew into a higher degree of strategic literary awareness and ambition. Again, the simple fact that Paul influenced Mark and Luke means that Matthew's awareness of those Gospels was indirect influence by Paul. That's at minimum.
Therefore with all given above - based on the "Matthew Kept Notes" scenario of Gospel formation - the second most dynamic figure in the formation of Christianity was also influential in the formation of the three synoptic Gospels.
This does not mean that any words Paul wrote were necessarily copied into any of the Gospels! That's not at all part of these considerations at the moment. But the simple point is that Paul of Tarsus himself was such an active change agent he just had a way of nudging things into happening that otherwise might not have happened.
--------------------------
By the way, I believe that sometimes – when they’re the right kind of men in other ways – those are just the kinds of men God needs.
God, send us more Pauls.
Another thing I like about this scenario is the influence of Paul. (On the process, not the text.) As a way of building on the scenario so far, here's some strong circumstancial evidence for Paul's influence on the formation of the "synoptic" gospels.
Mark’s Gospel was finished before Peter left for Greece in 53 AD and both Luke and Matthew had finished their Gospels by 61 or 62 AD. Thus, all three Gospels were “published” within a ten year window. The fact that this window covers Paul’s most prolific travel years is as non-coincidental as it was fortunate. But how, specifically, did Paul influence each Gospel writer?
We already know Paul was a direct influence on Mark and Luke. Mark's Gospel was born AFTER Paul called him to Galatia for his ability to give testimony as an eyewitness of the Lord's life and resurrection. So Paul actively worked Mark towards a practical mindset of engaging others to tell them what he knew. Writing was simply one mode Mark decided to do that in!
Likewise, we know how intertwined Paul's ministry was in Luke's life experience. Philippi did not get a letter during Luke's years there, but Paul had written seven letters by the time of his Caesarean imprisonment. And Luke had just spent weeks on a boat with Paul where they had little to do other than talk to each other. In fact, Luke saw Paul write his letter to Timothy and hand it to the young man. Luke also saw the effect of that letter when the new Ephesian elders met Paul on the beach. And that was just before Luke conceived his own writing project! (This timing is NOT coincidental.)
So Luke's degree of literary awareness would NOT have been at such an activatable threshold without the letter writing experience and strong communicative drive of the Apostle Paul. Luke's imagination for the strategic opportunities that written text could create in real life was very possibly nonexistent before his boat ride to Israel with Paul.
Obviously Luke knew how to read and write before knowing Paul... but how much current literature had he seen that interacted with its contemporary readers and caused dramatic changes in their lives? The Illiad and the Odyssey don't do that. Neither does any other text Luke was likely to have used while becoming literate, at whatever age.
Literary awareness, skill and effectiveness isn't just a matter of grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Style and organization are a whole other level. And strategic publication directed towards causing specific spiritual, social, political and legal results? That's a leap as big as Neil Armstrong's little hops on the moon!
In any scenario, Paul influenced Luke's literacy awareness in multiple aspects, to a very high degree. It should go without saying Paul was also one of Luke's sources and that Paul was personally available for advice, feedback and editorial assistance during Luke's project.
So that's Mark & Luke. What about Matthew?
If Matthew was content with his Notes Collection before he saw Mark and Luke's work, then Paul absolutely nudged Matthew into action, indirectly, just by influencing Mark & Luke.
We can also build a plausible case that Paul (from Caesarea) either met with Matthew or said things to others that were passed on to Matthew. If Luke visited Paul in prison at Caesarea even once, Luke would have shared with Paul what he was working on. Paul either knew about Matthew's notes from long ago or he'd heard about them about this time. Many people could have told Luke to go find Matthew's notes. But Paul could have given Luke some advice meant specifically for Matthew.
At the absolute least, wherever Matthew was living in Israel at the time, he could NOT have missed hearing the news that Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and sent to Caesarea. But if Matthew didn't get to Caesarea, Luke most likely found a way to get to Matthew. It's certain at least that Luke had Matthew up high on his list of eyewitnesses to interview.
Now that all may be mostly speculation. But if Luke met with Matthew - which is likely, given the amount of "new research" Matthew somehow picked up after Luke's visit - then they absolutely would have compared notes and talked a bit about their respective writing projects. It is entirely possible that Luke personally nudged Matthew into considering a complete Gospel project. Of course, there is less ground to speculate that Matthew visited Paul in Caesarea, but it's just as possible as not.
In any of these scenarios, Paul was either directly or indirectly responsible for helping Matthew into a higher degree of strategic literary awareness and ambition. Again, the simple fact that Paul influenced Mark and Luke means that Matthew's awareness of those Gospels was indirect influence by Paul. That's at minimum.
Therefore with all given above - based on the "Matthew Kept Notes" scenario of Gospel formation - the second most dynamic figure in the formation of Christianity was also influential in the formation of the three synoptic Gospels.
This does not mean that any words Paul wrote were necessarily copied into any of the Gospels! That's not at all part of these considerations at the moment. But the simple point is that Paul of Tarsus himself was such an active change agent he just had a way of nudging things into happening that otherwise might not have happened.
--------------------------
By the way, I believe that sometimes – when they’re the right kind of men in other ways – those are just the kinds of men God needs.
God, send us more Pauls.
Gospel Events Are History, Too
This occured to me recently: If Herodotus & Thucydides get extra credit (ie, graded on a curve) for being primitive historians, the Gospel Writers should get similar leeway for being amateur historians.
In other words - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John absolutely did intend their works as history. Or at least as "testimony" - which is to say, "history" as best their poor under-educated little minds knew how to do it. (Bless their hearts!) But at the very least, those four authors absolutely meant us to take their text as records of true events.
No, the Gospels are not a history textbook. Yes, they contain "theological" wisdom and truth that has spiritual value above and beyond the mere facts. BUT. IF we believe their testimony then they ARE records of real events, also. IF we accept the documents, including the miracles, then all of those EVENTS belong as part of history, too.
Christian Scholars often say the gospels are "Theological" and not "Historical" documents. What does that mean? Were the Gospel writers only interested in symbolism? In thematic meaning? Does anyone really think Luke's central purpose was to give us God-centered ideas to philosophize about? Did Mark write his Gospel hoping we'd all merely chop it up into bite sized morning devotionals? Did Matthew not care at all whether or not the 'false believers' in Israel at his time believed that Jesus had truly risen from the dead, in fact? Did they all just think they were passing on a good collection of inspirational motifs?
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But if you say yes to any of that, then haven't you - in a way - basically adopted the central tenants of the anti-faith crowd? Or is your theological view just a safe place to hide from their unyieldingly atheistic 'historical criticism'? Or what is it?
But if you say no to all that, Christian Scholars, then I have just one final question:
Honestly, can you please explain to me WHY there is so little interest among christian Biblical Scholars in reconstructing the EVENTS?
Update (7/31/08): I'm starting to find a few recent examples of what I'm talking about. I mean very recent - books of the past ten years or so. I'd cite a few, but I'm still sorting it all out. More later...
In other words - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John absolutely did intend their works as history. Or at least as "testimony" - which is to say, "history" as best their poor under-educated little minds knew how to do it. (Bless their hearts!) But at the very least, those four authors absolutely meant us to take their text as records of true events.
No, the Gospels are not a history textbook. Yes, they contain "theological" wisdom and truth that has spiritual value above and beyond the mere facts. BUT. IF we believe their testimony then they ARE records of real events, also. IF we accept the documents, including the miracles, then all of those EVENTS belong as part of history, too.
Christian Scholars often say the gospels are "Theological" and not "Historical" documents. What does that mean? Were the Gospel writers only interested in symbolism? In thematic meaning? Does anyone really think Luke's central purpose was to give us God-centered ideas to philosophize about? Did Mark write his Gospel hoping we'd all merely chop it up into bite sized morning devotionals? Did Matthew not care at all whether or not the 'false believers' in Israel at his time believed that Jesus had truly risen from the dead, in fact? Did they all just think they were passing on a good collection of inspirational motifs?
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But if you say yes to any of that, then haven't you - in a way - basically adopted the central tenants of the anti-faith crowd? Or is your theological view just a safe place to hide from their unyieldingly atheistic 'historical criticism'? Or what is it?
But if you say no to all that, Christian Scholars, then I have just one final question:
Honestly, can you please explain to me WHY there is so little interest among christian Biblical Scholars in reconstructing the EVENTS?
Update (7/31/08): I'm starting to find a few recent examples of what I'm talking about. I mean very recent - books of the past ten years or so. I'd cite a few, but I'm still sorting it all out. More later...
"Zealots" from 29 to 61 AD
Yeah right I'm not gonna post everyday! (Sigh.) Seriously, I could not escape this fascinating set of observations by Chris Spinks on the greek word "Zealotes" in Luke-Acts. I had no idea that was the Greek, and it got me to thinking. My reply turned into a whole post, so here it is.
-------------------------------
First of all, Chris, thanks for telling me the Jews in Pisidia and Thessalonica were not "jealous"! I guess the NASB guys figured rhyming words get bonus points for translation. ;)
I've been puzzling over Simon the Zealot for a while. First of all, there's no evidence of an organized "Zealot Party" until the 60's - until the revolution, really - but then again, we have Judas' two sons from Gamala getting crucified 14 years after Jesus. The best I can guess, Simon was personally interested in philosophies that were trickling downstream to Bethsaida, but he was one of the first/only ones. (Judas' sons were at least 25 years old when Simon began following Jesus but they obviously weren't being outspoken enough to get into trouble yet.)
Point 1: It looks like the "no lord but god" philosophy was being whispered about by a few as early as 29 AD, based on Luke's naming of Simon.
What puzzles me more is that James and Paul each use the word "zealot". (Again, thanks for pointing that out!) Notice, however, that Luke's portrayal of James' entreaty is dubious if not tacitly negative. In turn, Paul's claim to 'zealotry' is clearly, strictly and explicitly given in the past tense.
Point two: Whatever "zealot" means to Luke, it is something that Simon and Paul abandoned or at least moved beyond, and the fact that James vouches for it is not much commendation, coming from Luke.
It could be that Luke was going out of his way to show Paul was not a "zealot". That may be his basic purpose in these lines.
But - again - what puzzles me is that the word is actually "zealot". We know there was a dramatic increase in brigandage under Felix, including the rise of the Sicarii, but the sicarii were not necessarily "the Sicarii" yet just like the zealots were not actually "the Zealots" yet. Check out David M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6-74 CE, for a thorough examination of the evidence on the preliminary stages of these movements during the 50's and 60's.
I'm still inclined to take Rhoads' overall view, but Luke's language may suggest that the term 'zealot' was known to his audience as a political epithet for individuals and unorganized demographic subsets (at least). It may also tell us that by 57 AD that term was common as far as Jerusalem, and that by 61 AD it was known terminology as far away as Rome.
I do not, however, see any reason to believe Luke was painting Paul as a "zealot" in a deliberate or positive way. I think the whole purpose in including that term must have been another subtle tack to help exonerate Paul before Caesar. In other words, the word "zealot" must have come up in Rome and Luke had to work in a quick bit to show Paul was NOT associated with that budding phenomenon.
Of course if this is true then Luke really wasn't doing James any favors either, was he? Although I don't think for a second that James' words here mean the church in Jerusalem was taking any strong political stand against Rome. They might have been legalists and some of them may have been false believers who denied the resurrection - but this one word would be the only indication that they were considering political insurrection.
It was probably just Luke adding in a word to show Rome Paul wasn't attached to the growing revolutionary whispers. And since Rome didn't bother James until the Sanhedrin killed him, I'm guessing Luke's risk on James' behalf was calculatedly minor.
Hope that's not too speculative for you, Chris. Check out Rhoads and let me know what you think!
Same goes for anyone else! :)
UPDATE: Rhoads addresses just these topics on pages 86-7. Looks like I internalized without memorizing - so good for me! But Rhoads didn't try reconstructing from the NT's pov. And also, I'd never caught the word "zealot" in Acts 21. Dang NASB. ;) But footnote 89 could have cited the Acts verse. Ah, well.
-------------------------------
First of all, Chris, thanks for telling me the Jews in Pisidia and Thessalonica were not "jealous"! I guess the NASB guys figured rhyming words get bonus points for translation. ;)
I've been puzzling over Simon the Zealot for a while. First of all, there's no evidence of an organized "Zealot Party" until the 60's - until the revolution, really - but then again, we have Judas' two sons from Gamala getting crucified 14 years after Jesus. The best I can guess, Simon was personally interested in philosophies that were trickling downstream to Bethsaida, but he was one of the first/only ones. (Judas' sons were at least 25 years old when Simon began following Jesus but they obviously weren't being outspoken enough to get into trouble yet.)
Point 1: It looks like the "no lord but god" philosophy was being whispered about by a few as early as 29 AD, based on Luke's naming of Simon.
What puzzles me more is that James and Paul each use the word "zealot". (Again, thanks for pointing that out!) Notice, however, that Luke's portrayal of James' entreaty is dubious if not tacitly negative. In turn, Paul's claim to 'zealotry' is clearly, strictly and explicitly given in the past tense.
Point two: Whatever "zealot" means to Luke, it is something that Simon and Paul abandoned or at least moved beyond, and the fact that James vouches for it is not much commendation, coming from Luke.
It could be that Luke was going out of his way to show Paul was not a "zealot". That may be his basic purpose in these lines.
But - again - what puzzles me is that the word is actually "zealot". We know there was a dramatic increase in brigandage under Felix, including the rise of the Sicarii, but the sicarii were not necessarily "the Sicarii" yet just like the zealots were not actually "the Zealots" yet. Check out David M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6-74 CE, for a thorough examination of the evidence on the preliminary stages of these movements during the 50's and 60's.
I'm still inclined to take Rhoads' overall view, but Luke's language may suggest that the term 'zealot' was known to his audience as a political epithet for individuals and unorganized demographic subsets (at least). It may also tell us that by 57 AD that term was common as far as Jerusalem, and that by 61 AD it was known terminology as far away as Rome.
I do not, however, see any reason to believe Luke was painting Paul as a "zealot" in a deliberate or positive way. I think the whole purpose in including that term must have been another subtle tack to help exonerate Paul before Caesar. In other words, the word "zealot" must have come up in Rome and Luke had to work in a quick bit to show Paul was NOT associated with that budding phenomenon.
Of course if this is true then Luke really wasn't doing James any favors either, was he? Although I don't think for a second that James' words here mean the church in Jerusalem was taking any strong political stand against Rome. They might have been legalists and some of them may have been false believers who denied the resurrection - but this one word would be the only indication that they were considering political insurrection.
It was probably just Luke adding in a word to show Rome Paul wasn't attached to the growing revolutionary whispers. And since Rome didn't bother James until the Sanhedrin killed him, I'm guessing Luke's risk on James' behalf was calculatedly minor.
Hope that's not too speculative for you, Chris. Check out Rhoads and let me know what you think!
Same goes for anyone else! :)
UPDATE: Rhoads addresses just these topics on pages 86-7. Looks like I internalized without memorizing - so good for me! But Rhoads didn't try reconstructing from the NT's pov. And also, I'd never caught the word "zealot" in Acts 21. Dang NASB. ;) But footnote 89 could have cited the Acts verse. Ah, well.
Getting On With It
In 1939, Ronald Syme closed his preface to The Roman Revolution with these words: "Its imperfections are patent and flagrant. It has not been composed in tranquility; and it ought to be held back for several years and rewritten. But the theme, I firmly believe, is of some importance. If the book provokes salutary criticism, so much the better."
Twelve years later, for the reprinting of 1951, Professor Syme added three sentences to that preface, closing with: "Essentially, and strictly, therefore, the book is what it was when it first appeared."
And I say - good thing he went on and published it in '39, eh?
So I may be posting a bit less often, for a while. :)
Twelve years later, for the reprinting of 1951, Professor Syme added three sentences to that preface, closing with: "Essentially, and strictly, therefore, the book is what it was when it first appeared."
And I say - good thing he went on and published it in '39, eh?
So I may be posting a bit less often, for a while. :)
Reconstruction vs. Apologetics (?)
What is the difference between Reconstruction and Apologetics? Is it possible to do a Reconstruction that just also happens to be apologetic? Is the difference simply a matter of personal bias or is it the quality of scholarship, or both? And have traditional views of these questions been affected at all by postmodern assertions that it may be impossible to approach academic subjects with no bias whatsoever?
Classical Scholars take Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc, and attempt Reconstruction. Is that 'apologetics'? Or should I say, "WHEN is that 'apologetics'? When Barbara Levick
exonerates Tiberius and Livia, reconstructing the most likely scenario for the death of Posthumous Agrippa in 14 AD (Augustus left behind final instructions for the soldier guarding his grandson)... is THAT 'apologetics'? If so, is it also Reconstruction?
Help me out, Blog-Scholars, won't you?
Where are the lines? What are the rules?
Classical Scholars take Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc, and attempt Reconstruction. Is that 'apologetics'? Or should I say, "WHEN is that 'apologetics'? When Barbara Levick
exonerates Tiberius and Livia, reconstructing the most likely scenario for the death of Posthumous Agrippa in 14 AD (Augustus left behind final instructions for the soldier guarding his grandson)... is THAT 'apologetics'? If so, is it also Reconstruction?Help me out, Blog-Scholars, won't you?
Where are the lines? What are the rules?
History Site Staats
These are the 500 most recent search querries (by frequency) that caused someone to visit Year-by-Year. What's most interesting is that the most common querry BY FAR is people (daily) looking for info on the year "1 AD". Because of these staats, I went back a few days ago and added a note to the top of that page. I hope it helps people who want to know more about these things. See also my site index, below, for more on the years surrounding Jesus' birth.
the year 10ad, year 1 ad, cornutus arruntius aquila, world history 4 bc to 35 ad, year 1 a d, earthquakes in 32 ad, emperor augustus order the building of via Sebaste, the year 1 ad, year by year quirinius, augustus caesar roman census, jewish history 6bc, augustuscaesertaxesthewholeworld, the year 10ad, 1 year ad, year 10 ad, year 48 ad, year 2ad, information on the pharisee, named gamaliel, 6 bc, ancient events in 9ad 9bc, roman leaders- the governors in pre and post 70 ad, marcus plautius silvanus proconsul of asia, antigonus antony three years captive death, the year 10 a.d., arabia 40 ad, what temple did hillel teach, fort antonia legio x fretensis, segimerus, what year did the romans take over Israel, roof in bethlehem 4bc, the year 5 a.d., rabbi's and the influence on jerusalem before 70 ad, year 6 bc, strongest seventy year old man, shaul gamaliel the elder, year 10 a.d., what were great men doing at 19 years old, by the way, we should mention at this point, there was another saturninus (of no known relation) who went to syria this year, as governor. the procons, things 65 year olds wouldn't normally do, roman empire in the year 1ad, 42 ad census rome, when did the year 1 a d start, friendship of mary and elizabeth in the bible, sephoris destroyed dynasty jesus mary joseph, nabatean sailing, herod knew augustus, legio x fretensis crucifixion, caesar year 1ad, sabbath year cycle, an account why syllaeus fled from king herod?, who lived in tiberius in biblical times, women in 4bc Bethlehem, what year did the greeks move to Europe, roman empire 6bc, from 3 bc to 2 ad, is it 5 years or 6?, aretas the forth and syllaeus, gamaliel teachings, augustus caesar military retirement bonus, roman empire before 27 bc, roman census in 7 ad, 10 ad year, via sebaste map road, nabatean arabs, ad year, sword 9 ad, year 1 a.d., that was the year.com, plautius silvanus year-by-year, tiberius generals in germany, was paul taught by gamaliel, the year 10 ad, cornutus was governor in 6 ad. and quirinius has to be in rome by late 1 ad (so he can get a new assignment from caesar in early 2 ad). so any way you cu, year 2 ad, cassius dio about quirinius, homanadensian war, varus 2000 crucifixions, years between persian conquering jeruslem and their defeat by rome, the year 1 a.d., the year 1.ad, egypt wars in bc years, jesus 5 ad herod, syllaeus, marcus titius, roman history circa 2 a.d. government broke legionnaires, census augustus, daniel odobas, the year 4 ad?, the year 1 a d
the year 10ad, year 1 ad, cornutus arruntius aquila, world history 4 bc to 35 ad, year 1 a d, earthquakes in 32 ad, emperor augustus order the building of via Sebaste, the year 1 ad, year by year quirinius, augustus caesar roman census, jewish history 6bc, augustuscaesertaxesthewholeworld, the year 10ad, 1 year ad, year 10 ad, year 48 ad, year 2ad, information on the pharisee, named gamaliel, 6 bc, ancient events in 9ad 9bc, roman leaders- the governors in pre and post 70 ad, marcus plautius silvanus proconsul of asia, antigonus antony three years captive death, the year 10 a.d., arabia 40 ad, what temple did hillel teach, fort antonia legio x fretensis, segimerus, what year did the romans take over Israel, roof in bethlehem 4bc, the year 5 a.d., rabbi's and the influence on jerusalem before 70 ad, year 6 bc, strongest seventy year old man, shaul gamaliel the elder, year 10 a.d., what were great men doing at 19 years old, by the way, we should mention at this point, there was another saturninus (of no known relation) who went to syria this year, as governor. the procons, things 65 year olds wouldn't normally do, roman empire in the year 1ad, 42 ad census rome, when did the year 1 a d start, friendship of mary and elizabeth in the bible, sephoris destroyed dynasty jesus mary joseph, nabatean sailing, herod knew augustus, legio x fretensis crucifixion, caesar year 1ad, sabbath year cycle, an account why syllaeus fled from king herod?, who lived in tiberius in biblical times, women in 4bc Bethlehem, what year did the greeks move to Europe, roman empire 6bc, from 3 bc to 2 ad, is it 5 years or 6?, aretas the forth and syllaeus, gamaliel teachings, augustus caesar military retirement bonus, roman empire before 27 bc, roman census in 7 ad, 10 ad year, via sebaste map road, nabatean arabs, ad year, sword 9 ad, year 1 a.d., that was the year.com, plautius silvanus year-by-year, tiberius generals in germany, was paul taught by gamaliel, the year 10 ad, cornutus was governor in 6 ad. and quirinius has to be in rome by late 1 ad (so he can get a new assignment from caesar in early 2 ad). so any way you cu, year 2 ad, cassius dio about quirinius, homanadensian war, varus 2000 crucifixions, years between persian conquering jeruslem and their defeat by rome, the year 1 a.d., the year 1.ad, egypt wars in bc years, jesus 5 ad herod, syllaeus, marcus titius, roman history circa 2 a.d. government broke legionnaires, census augustus, daniel odobas, the year 4 ad?, the year 1 a d
Sequence of Gospel Events
As I said recently, I’ve been making my own cut-and-paste harmony of the Gospels. Maybe I’ll upload some photos when it’s done. But I want to get a few points on record here, for now.
First of all, Johnston Cheney
was a genius. Harold Hoehner
is a genius, too. But Cheney found a living rhythm inside all four gospels, together. Cheney said, “The process of minutely arranging all the materials in their natural sequence has the benefit of allowing the texts to develop their own chronology.”
Now I’ve spent the past 12 years reading Cheney’s work more than I read the gospels. (Don't pooh-pooh. There was purpose in it.) I've completely memorized his chronology of Gospel events. Some weeks ago I realized I needed to learn all four gospels just as well, and how each one fits into Cheney’s work. So far, it’s been a great chance to find all the tough parts again.
I actually differ on Cheney in a few minor points. For one, the second Nazareth Synagogue trip must have happened before the 30 AD fall festival (in John 5) because the Lord began his speech to send out the twelve with harvest imagery (Matt.9:37). That means Jesus was alone for six months – from late September, 30 AD, until late March, 31 AD! But this is only a slight change from Cheney’s original sequence, and - to the point - this is not an observation I was able to make without the aid of studying the events' sequence for over a decade.
I’m also leaning heavily towards “doubling” all the pure teachings sections in Matthew and Luke – that is to say, I’m about to suppose they were simply said twice, as opposed to Cheney’s method of rearranging those parts of Matthew and Luke, as if those teachings were only spoken out loud one time, uniquely. Come on. Jesus goes to every town and village in Galilee and Judea. He spends four years doing it. He’s got the same basic message he wants everyone to hear. And you think he doesn’t repeat a few things, at least twice?
Point: even if Luke and Matthew were using the same written source (Such as Matthew's Notes) there's just not enough reason to claim that page of notes was a fair representation of Jesus' words on merely one occasion alone. With eyewitness corroboration, it could easily be claimed Jesus repeated almost the same speech exactly two or three years later, in some other place. With that, Luke could use notes from a speech given in 30 AD to record an identical speech made in 32 AD. No problem. Plausible. And perhaps far more likely.
But whatever Luke did with his source material, it's at least far more likely Jesus DID say the same things more than once. Thus, it's far LESS obtrustive to working with the 'Synoptic texts' (Matt/Mark/Luke) if we leave the dual placements of those statements alone. Their placement early in Matthew or late in Luke should not necessarily stand as an interruption in the sequence of events or their chronology... unless, in some specific case, the speech is attached to some other specific time, location or event. It may only mean the speech was given twice.
This mainly ends the places I differ significantly with Cheney. So I'll leave the next segment of my thougts tonight for another post...
First of all, Johnston Cheney
was a genius. Harold Hoehner is a genius, too. But Cheney found a living rhythm inside all four gospels, together. Cheney said, “The process of minutely arranging all the materials in their natural sequence has the benefit of allowing the texts to develop their own chronology.”Now I’ve spent the past 12 years reading Cheney’s work more than I read the gospels. (Don't pooh-pooh. There was purpose in it.) I've completely memorized his chronology of Gospel events. Some weeks ago I realized I needed to learn all four gospels just as well, and how each one fits into Cheney’s work. So far, it’s been a great chance to find all the tough parts again.
I actually differ on Cheney in a few minor points. For one, the second Nazareth Synagogue trip must have happened before the 30 AD fall festival (in John 5) because the Lord began his speech to send out the twelve with harvest imagery (Matt.9:37). That means Jesus was alone for six months – from late September, 30 AD, until late March, 31 AD! But this is only a slight change from Cheney’s original sequence, and - to the point - this is not an observation I was able to make without the aid of studying the events' sequence for over a decade.
I’m also leaning heavily towards “doubling” all the pure teachings sections in Matthew and Luke – that is to say, I’m about to suppose they were simply said twice, as opposed to Cheney’s method of rearranging those parts of Matthew and Luke, as if those teachings were only spoken out loud one time, uniquely. Come on. Jesus goes to every town and village in Galilee and Judea. He spends four years doing it. He’s got the same basic message he wants everyone to hear. And you think he doesn’t repeat a few things, at least twice?
Point: even if Luke and Matthew were using the same written source (Such as Matthew's Notes) there's just not enough reason to claim that page of notes was a fair representation of Jesus' words on merely one occasion alone. With eyewitness corroboration, it could easily be claimed Jesus repeated almost the same speech exactly two or three years later, in some other place. With that, Luke could use notes from a speech given in 30 AD to record an identical speech made in 32 AD. No problem. Plausible. And perhaps far more likely.
But whatever Luke did with his source material, it's at least far more likely Jesus DID say the same things more than once. Thus, it's far LESS obtrustive to working with the 'Synoptic texts' (Matt/Mark/Luke) if we leave the dual placements of those statements alone. Their placement early in Matthew or late in Luke should not necessarily stand as an interruption in the sequence of events or their chronology... unless, in some specific case, the speech is attached to some other specific time, location or event. It may only mean the speech was given twice.
This mainly ends the places I differ significantly with Cheney. So I'll leave the next segment of my thougts tonight for another post...
Historic Resurrection
In case my readers haven't all heard, there's this big hunk of rock the papers are calling "Gabriel's Revelation". It's supposed to pre-date Jesus and predict that a Messiah would die and return from the dead. It's controversial, of course, and everybody's got their spin.
I say, "Enh. So?" Probably more helpful is what C.S. Lewis said on this topic a long time ago. (Found this quote on a couple of blogs today.)
In the New Testament, the thing really happens. The Dying God really appears—as a historical Person, living in a definite place and time. . . . The old myth of the Dying God . . . comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ [in other religions]: they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t.
—C. S. Lewis, “Answers to Questions about Christianity”; “Myth Became Fact” in God in The Dock, 58; 66; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
Now how could I not LOVE that quote? :)
I say, "Enh. So?" Probably more helpful is what C.S. Lewis said on this topic a long time ago. (Found this quote on a couple of blogs today.)
In the New Testament, the thing really happens. The Dying God really appears—as a historical Person, living in a definite place and time. . . . The old myth of the Dying God . . . comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We must not be nervous about ‘parallels’ [in other religions]: they ought to be there—it would be a stumbling block if they weren’t.
—C. S. Lewis, “Answers to Questions about Christianity”; “Myth Became Fact” in God in The Dock, 58; 66; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
Now how could I not LOVE that quote? :)
Healthy Limits
I really hate to juice the big-words average on my blog’s reading level, but this is too good. I’ve got to quote this. Much thanks to my old Classics & Literature Professor, Dr. Bob McMahon, who quoted the first paragraph of this to me, by heart, a month ago.
I soon found that it is too late to look for instruments, when the work calls for execution, and that whatever abilities I had brought to my task, with those I must finally perform it. To deliberate whenever I doubted, to enquire whenever I was ignorant, would have protracted the undertaking without end, and, perhaps, without much improvement; for I did not find by my first experiments, that what I had not of my own was easily to be obtained: I saw that one enquiry only gave occasion to another, that book referred to book, that to search was not always to find, and to find was not always to be informed; and that thus to pursue perfection, was, like the first inhabitants of Arcadia, to chase the sun, which, when they had reached the hill where he seemed to rest, was still beheld at the same distance from them.
I then contracted my design, determining to confide in myself, and no longer to solicit auxiliaries, which produced more encumbrance than assistance: by this I obtained at least one advantage, that I set limits to my work, which would in time be ended, though not completed.
From Samuel Johnson’s Preface to his Dictionary of the English Language, 1755
Ahem.
I’m not going to obey that. Not nearly. As if I could. But it’s really good advice. I’ll do my best, Dr. Bob! It’s going to be better to get this thing done, than for it to be perfect. I’ll get critics input later. Then I’ll do an update.
Simple, right?
Now, all I need is five years off work and a million dollar publishing budget! ;)
I soon found that it is too late to look for instruments, when the work calls for execution, and that whatever abilities I had brought to my task, with those I must finally perform it. To deliberate whenever I doubted, to enquire whenever I was ignorant, would have protracted the undertaking without end, and, perhaps, without much improvement; for I did not find by my first experiments, that what I had not of my own was easily to be obtained: I saw that one enquiry only gave occasion to another, that book referred to book, that to search was not always to find, and to find was not always to be informed; and that thus to pursue perfection, was, like the first inhabitants of Arcadia, to chase the sun, which, when they had reached the hill where he seemed to rest, was still beheld at the same distance from them.
I then contracted my design, determining to confide in myself, and no longer to solicit auxiliaries, which produced more encumbrance than assistance: by this I obtained at least one advantage, that I set limits to my work, which would in time be ended, though not completed.
From Samuel Johnson’s Preface to his Dictionary of the English Language, 1755
Ahem.
I’m not going to obey that. Not nearly. As if I could. But it’s really good advice. I’ll do my best, Dr. Bob! It’s going to be better to get this thing done, than for it to be perfect. I’ll get critics input later. Then I’ll do an update.
Simple, right?
Now, all I need is five years off work and a million dollar publishing budget! ;)
More Feedback, Please
There are two kinds of criticism. The first kind says, "This is worthless and you should quit." The second kind says, "Keep at it, but watch out for this, that & the other thing." By the way, positive feedback isn't criticism. That's praise. Which is also nice. :)
My point? As long as you think I should "Keep at it" then I WANT your criticism. And I'm pretty good at shaking off the other kind. :) This ain't gonna be perfect in my lifetime... but it's definitely worth doing. The reason I'm blogging is to find those who can help make it better. (Arguing is fine, too. Fun, even.)
Thanks again to those who've helped so far. I'll try and repay the favor more often...
My point? As long as you think I should "Keep at it" then I WANT your criticism. And I'm pretty good at shaking off the other kind. :) This ain't gonna be perfect in my lifetime... but it's definitely worth doing. The reason I'm blogging is to find those who can help make it better. (Arguing is fine, too. Fun, even.)
Thanks again to those who've helped so far. I'll try and repay the favor more often...
Ancient Bible Online Soon
This will be cool. Check it out! Even if you don't want to read Greek, I'm excited just to see what this thing even looks like. Hint: it won't look at all like the picture in the article. ;)
Agrippina (Draft Bio/Intro)
How does one write (or read) 79 Year Books that take thousands of pages to cover hundreds of real-life characters? What kind of planning does that take? Now, add that we'd like for each Year Book to be a fairly accessible starting point for any new reader. And yet we'd also like to use the start of each "Volume" as jumping on points for those who will be reading straight through.
Among other things - such as a character glossary and hyperlink-style footnotes - there will be occasional character introductions. I haven't done this much since the early Year Books of Volume One, but I believe I've got to do this for 14 AD, Part Two. In other words, it will be partly a Year Book and partly an introduction to the 'cast' of major players.
Today I drafted an intro to Agrippina "the Elder" at the time of Augustus' death. As usual, in recent months, I'm posting it here to get feedback from anyone so inclined. At least, before long, some professor or Ph.D student will probably google it. Here's hoping they (or you) are inclined to post helpful, challenging or inquisitive comments...
Here, now, is my intro to Agrippina in 14 AD. Please note, this is still a draft! But isn't it all? ;)
----------------------------------------------
Vipsania Agrippina (“Agrippina the Elder”) was a granddaughter of Caesar Augustus. If she had been born a man, she’d have become emperor instead of Tiberius. Then again, if Agrippina ahd been born a man, she might have died mysteriously or gotten exiled like her three brothers, Gaius, Lucius & Posthumous.
In 4 AD, while Rome whispered that Livia (Caesar's wife, Tiberius' mother) had somehow killed Gaius & Lucius, Agrippina found favor with Livia by marrying her grandson Germanicus. In the first four years of her marriage, Agrippina had two sons. She also saw her brother Posthumous and sister Julia both get exiled. The infants made Agrippina the mother of great-grandbaby Caesars. The exiles made Agrippina the last of her family in Rome, lonely, but glad to survive.
Agrippina’s father, Marcus Agrippa, had died when she was two. Her mother, Julia, got exiled when Agrippina was only twelve. She lost her siblings in a span of six years, from age 15 through 21. Married by age 17, mother by age 19, Agrippina had been playing her role. But she left Rome whenever her husband did. And she steered clear of Tiberius.
Agrippina did not want to suffer cruel fate like the rest of her family. She stayed far from Rome, as much as she could. She kept having babies to keep herself on Livia’s good side. And she aimed for the very top.
For Agrippina, ambition was not merely in her blood. It was a matter of survival. So was having lots of children. Agrippina was working toward the day when her husband Germanicus and/or one of her sons would be Emperor. Personal history had already assured her: the only other options were exile or death.
Agrippina’s half-sister, Vipsania, and her mother, Julia, had each married Tiberius once. The old man was her former half-brother-in-law, former step-father, now father-in-law by adoption. He was currently unmarried. Agrippina’s mother-in-law, Antonia, was Marc Antony’s daughter. Antonia had survived a long time being the sister-in-law of Tiberius and the daughter-in-law of Livia. So Agrippina took notes from watching her mother-in-law, Antonia.
There were only so many strong women role models to learn from. Agrippina was determined to make her own mark, her own way.
It will be interesting to watch how she does that… especially after her husband dies! (But we'll get to that.) And decades from now, after her own death, a son and a grandson of Agrippina will both become Emperor. Yet, one of Agrippina's daughters will prove far more impressive than any of them.
What kind of a mother produces such offspring? Stay tuned. These are the years when Agrippina (“the elder”) comes into her own.
We’ll keep up with her progress from this point on, Year by Year.
------------------------------------
Hope y'all enjoyed that. Any help? Any mistakes? Anyone?
Among other things - such as a character glossary and hyperlink-style footnotes - there will be occasional character introductions. I haven't done this much since the early Year Books of Volume One, but I believe I've got to do this for 14 AD, Part Two. In other words, it will be partly a Year Book and partly an introduction to the 'cast' of major players.
Today I drafted an intro to Agrippina "the Elder" at the time of Augustus' death. As usual, in recent months, I'm posting it here to get feedback from anyone so inclined. At least, before long, some professor or Ph.D student will probably google it. Here's hoping they (or you) are inclined to post helpful, challenging or inquisitive comments...
Here, now, is my intro to Agrippina in 14 AD. Please note, this is still a draft! But isn't it all? ;)
----------------------------------------------
Vipsania Agrippina (“Agrippina the Elder”) was a granddaughter of Caesar Augustus. If she had been born a man, she’d have become emperor instead of Tiberius. Then again, if Agrippina ahd been born a man, she might have died mysteriously or gotten exiled like her three brothers, Gaius, Lucius & Posthumous.
In 4 AD, while Rome whispered that Livia (Caesar's wife, Tiberius' mother) had somehow killed Gaius & Lucius, Agrippina found favor with Livia by marrying her grandson Germanicus. In the first four years of her marriage, Agrippina had two sons. She also saw her brother Posthumous and sister Julia both get exiled. The infants made Agrippina the mother of great-grandbaby Caesars. The exiles made Agrippina the last of her family in Rome, lonely, but glad to survive.
Agrippina’s father, Marcus Agrippa, had died when she was two. Her mother, Julia, got exiled when Agrippina was only twelve. She lost her siblings in a span of six years, from age 15 through 21. Married by age 17, mother by age 19, Agrippina had been playing her role. But she left Rome whenever her husband did. And she steered clear of Tiberius.
Agrippina did not want to suffer cruel fate like the rest of her family. She stayed far from Rome, as much as she could. She kept having babies to keep herself on Livia’s good side. And she aimed for the very top.
For Agrippina, ambition was not merely in her blood. It was a matter of survival. So was having lots of children. Agrippina was working toward the day when her husband Germanicus and/or one of her sons would be Emperor. Personal history had already assured her: the only other options were exile or death.
Agrippina’s half-sister, Vipsania, and her mother, Julia, had each married Tiberius once. The old man was her former half-brother-in-law, former step-father, now father-in-law by adoption. He was currently unmarried. Agrippina’s mother-in-law, Antonia, was Marc Antony’s daughter. Antonia had survived a long time being the sister-in-law of Tiberius and the daughter-in-law of Livia. So Agrippina took notes from watching her mother-in-law, Antonia.
There were only so many strong women role models to learn from. Agrippina was determined to make her own mark, her own way.
It will be interesting to watch how she does that… especially after her husband dies! (But we'll get to that.) And decades from now, after her own death, a son and a grandson of Agrippina will both become Emperor. Yet, one of Agrippina's daughters will prove far more impressive than any of them.
What kind of a mother produces such offspring? Stay tuned. These are the years when Agrippina (“the elder”) comes into her own.
We’ll keep up with her progress from this point on, Year by Year.
------------------------------------
Hope y'all enjoyed that. Any help? Any mistakes? Anyone?
Bits of News
I've got almost a dozen typed pages of notes on 14 AD (part two), plus hilights, scribbles and scraps in about a dozen books. It's a lot to get organized, just by itself. Then I have to decide what to include and to what degree. And on top of that, how best to lay the groundwork of interest (for the reader) by focusing on the elements that will carry us through the next 14 yearboks or so until Jesus comes back into major focus again. And if the finished Year Book is more than three to five pages, it'll be way too long! Aaaaaaaaaand... with all of that saaaaaaaid... I think I've turned a corner on conquering this beast of a Year Book. So stay tuned!
In other news, I have to recommend this post to anyone interested in textual differences among the Gospels. The blogger collects Joke Books, pointing them out as a rare modern example of how collected material [that gets passed on by a combination of written and oral transmission] can undergo changes along the way. This proves nothing, of course, about the Gospels. It's just interesting in comparison. Check it out.
Finally, I can't believe there's only three full weeks left until pre-planning for teachers new to the district. Sigh.....
It's nice to have summer and I'm lucky to have a good job (breathe deeply, repeat as needed). ;)
In other news, I have to recommend this post to anyone interested in textual differences among the Gospels. The blogger collects Joke Books, pointing them out as a rare modern example of how collected material [that gets passed on by a combination of written and oral transmission] can undergo changes along the way. This proves nothing, of course, about the Gospels. It's just interesting in comparison. Check it out.
Finally, I can't believe there's only three full weeks left until pre-planning for teachers new to the district. Sigh.....
It's nice to have summer and I'm lucky to have a good job (breathe deeply, repeat as needed). ;)
Don't Apologize
John Wayne said that. Or so I'm told. It's good advice, if you can understand it. The basic idea is that I should apologize if I hurt or wrong someone else, but I should not apologize for stepping up, speaking out or taking a stand. That's hard to live by, but I like it.
So anyway... The excellent conversation below my last point has left me thinking about my purpose here. Am I just doing 'apologetics' here? I sure hope not. Apologetics usually means when christians make arguments to try and prove that God exists or that the Bible is infallible. Often, it seems to be aimed at convincing unbelievers or at protecting innocent believers from the attacks of skeptics. That's not at all what I set out to do.
Just exactly one year ago I had a few e-mails back and forth with a very aged, very confirmed atheist. He contacted me first, and we talked a bit. But that's a whole other story. All I want to say now is that sometime during those e-mails it suddenly occurred to me that I had never once imagined myself as writing for unbelievers. It was like a light dawned, that I had never thought of that. It made me smile, and it actually made me a bit proud of my work and my approach.
I saw guys in college try to disprove evolution. For what? For whom? Look, I don't believe in evolution and I'm not ashamed to say so. No one will ever convince me it's true but I don't care if you believe it. It just doesn't concern me. More importantly, I don't think most people come to God because of evolution. Or because someone defended the Bible. I'm sure some do, but not really. I mean, if that's a tool the Lord uses sometimes, then great. But that's Him. And the attitude of many apologists seems to be, from what I can tell, that if we just argue well enough, people will have to cave in and become christians. That's hooey.
On the other hand, I have great sympathy for defending believers from attacks on their faith. And maybe that's what most apologetics is good for. For the sake of believers, especially at universities! I don't know any apologists. But here's what I want to say:
We come to God by approaching God and/or because he has approached us. He may woo us. His people may woo us. Yes, brothers and sisters, we christians can and do woo one another on behalf of the Lord. We should do it more. :) Arguments may even be involved at times. But we do not come to God because of arguments. We have to approach him until we find him. Until we find HIM. (Not until we find good enough arguments to make us feel willing to accept an idea of him.)
In other words, the most important thing about faith is not faith's rationale - it is faith's object. We did not convert to belief in good arguments. We converted to belief in Jesus Christ!
Anyway, I'm not doing 'apologetics' here. So what AM I doing?
I'm painting a picture. I'm trying to make it as accurate as possible. I'm trying to make it as complete as possible. I'm trying to make it as 'pretty' as possible. And I want it to be as credible as possible. Those goals are tough to balance. So I'm blogging about the process. And I'm blogging about the details. I deeply desire more feedback.
And I'm extremely grateful for Wieland and 'newheights' and all you other nice folks who've given me feedback so far. Keep it coming, please! My last post might have seemed closer to 'apologetics' than scholarship. But that wasn't my purpose. Although, academically, I'm sure I'm closer to that level! Ah well. Whaddyagunnado? ;)
For now, I'll repeat a question I just asked below the last post: How much "support" do y'all think my Reconstruction should require?
And I'll add this new question: What form and style should it take?
So anyway... The excellent conversation below my last point has left me thinking about my purpose here. Am I just doing 'apologetics' here? I sure hope not. Apologetics usually means when christians make arguments to try and prove that God exists or that the Bible is infallible. Often, it seems to be aimed at convincing unbelievers or at protecting innocent believers from the attacks of skeptics. That's not at all what I set out to do.
Just exactly one year ago I had a few e-mails back and forth with a very aged, very confirmed atheist. He contacted me first, and we talked a bit. But that's a whole other story. All I want to say now is that sometime during those e-mails it suddenly occurred to me that I had never once imagined myself as writing for unbelievers. It was like a light dawned, that I had never thought of that. It made me smile, and it actually made me a bit proud of my work and my approach.
I saw guys in college try to disprove evolution. For what? For whom? Look, I don't believe in evolution and I'm not ashamed to say so. No one will ever convince me it's true but I don't care if you believe it. It just doesn't concern me. More importantly, I don't think most people come to God because of evolution. Or because someone defended the Bible. I'm sure some do, but not really. I mean, if that's a tool the Lord uses sometimes, then great. But that's Him. And the attitude of many apologists seems to be, from what I can tell, that if we just argue well enough, people will have to cave in and become christians. That's hooey.
On the other hand, I have great sympathy for defending believers from attacks on their faith. And maybe that's what most apologetics is good for. For the sake of believers, especially at universities! I don't know any apologists. But here's what I want to say:
We come to God by approaching God and/or because he has approached us. He may woo us. His people may woo us. Yes, brothers and sisters, we christians can and do woo one another on behalf of the Lord. We should do it more. :) Arguments may even be involved at times. But we do not come to God because of arguments. We have to approach him until we find him. Until we find HIM. (Not until we find good enough arguments to make us feel willing to accept an idea of him.)
In other words, the most important thing about faith is not faith's rationale - it is faith's object. We did not convert to belief in good arguments. We converted to belief in Jesus Christ!
Anyway, I'm not doing 'apologetics' here. So what AM I doing?
I'm painting a picture. I'm trying to make it as accurate as possible. I'm trying to make it as complete as possible. I'm trying to make it as 'pretty' as possible. And I want it to be as credible as possible. Those goals are tough to balance. So I'm blogging about the process. And I'm blogging about the details. I deeply desire more feedback.
And I'm extremely grateful for Wieland and 'newheights' and all you other nice folks who've given me feedback so far. Keep it coming, please! My last post might have seemed closer to 'apologetics' than scholarship. But that wasn't my purpose. Although, academically, I'm sure I'm closer to that level! Ah well. Whaddyagunnado? ;)
For now, I'll repeat a question I just asked below the last post: How much "support" do y'all think my Reconstruction should require?
And I'll add this new question: What form and style should it take?
Some Things Happened Twice
Note: The purpose of this post is to help build a proper context for the gospels' events. Many scholars take issue with the differences in certain parts of the Gospels. But Johnston Cheney was one man who found very impressive, very (sadly) overlooked solutions to many of the supposed 'problems'. What follows in this post is largely based on the work of Cheney's "Life of Christ in Stereo". For the record, he was an amateur scholar. Like me. :)
God doesn’t always do things the same way. Jesus healed blind men several times. Once he touched the guy on the head. A different time, he had to touch the guy twice. Another time he spat on the dirt and rubbed mud on the blind guy’s eyes. Three healings. All different. On different occasions, He healed different ways.
But sometimes God DOES do things somewhat close to the same way twice. There are various examples in the four gospels where details that appear to be problems have been solved in this way. Some things happened twice. Sometimes Jesus said things he’d said before. Sometimes Jesus did things he’d done before. There were usually small differences, but anyone who heard both stories could be forgiven for thinking it was the same story.
Here are some situations where Jesus did or said almost the exact same thing twice.
(1) In Jerusalem, in April 29 AD, Jesus walked into the temple and saw moneychangers and moneylenders setting up their tables in the temple courtyard. That made him mad. So he did something about it. Four years later, in late March 33 AD, Jesus walked into the same temple. He saw the same thing. He had the same reaction. Both times, Jesus turned over their tables. The first time he made a whip to get their attention, but the second time, four years later, they knew who he was! Still, the same thing did happen in basically the same way, twice.
People used to assume this could only have happened once. But if you were the Son of God and this kind of thing made you mad, wouldn’t you get just as mad the second time? And you know these money lending guys made their living doing the same thing every year. So they must have been there both times Jesus showed up. So it happened twice.
(2) In Jericho, in March 33 AD, Jesus healed this one blind guy coming into town and then he healed two different guys coming out of town. The first guy, Bartimaeus, followed Jesus all day long, so the story got around. That’s how the next two guys decided to do exactly what Bartimaeus did. They went outside the city and waited. When Jesus came, they cried out the same way, using the same words they’d been told that Bartimaeus had used. This time, Jesus was moved with compassion and healed them by touch. (But Bartimaeus had been healed by Jesus’ words alone.)
You can understand how people might think these were two different versions of the same story, but it was two different events. The differences are just as key as the similarities, but the context of the day’s events in the city makes the whole situation clear. Jesus healed twice at Jericho.
(3) In Bethsaida, in the Summer of 29 AD, Jesus saw some friends of his by the sea. They were casting their nets. They hadn’t seen Jesus since they left him with that woman at the well in Samaria, but Peter, Andrew, James & John left their nets and followed the Lord. The whole group went over to Capernaum and watched Jesus speak in the Synagogue. Then they all walked back to Bethsaida. (The walk was less than 3 miles.) Jesus healed Peter’s mom-in-law, then word got out and Jesus healed people from all over town.
The next day, Jesus wanted to keep traveling on, but Peter wasn’t ready to leave home. So Jesus went on preaching in various towns and synagogues, for some weeks. By himself.
Some weeks or months later, Jesus came back to the sea at Bethsaida. Again, he saw his old friends. This time, they were cleaning their nets. This time, he didn’t just say “follow me”. This time, he borrowed their boat, taught a while, and then caught them some fish. This time, there was a dramatic scene between Jesus and Peter. And this time, the fishermen left more than their nets. They left everything. This was the second time fishermen left the sea to follow Jesus. It was totally different, but in certain ways, it seemed the same. In other words, "it happened twice".
That was three good examples of Jesus doing similar things on seperate occasions. Here’s one more.
(4) In Nazareth, in the summer of 29 AD, Jesus went back to Nazareth alone. His mother, father and brothers had just moved to Capernaum. His new friends from Bethsaida had left him in Samaria. His married sisters were in Nazareth, still, and so were some old family friends. But Jesus came alone when he went into their Synagogue. He spoke. Then the townspeople tried to push him over a cliff! Now then, a year later, some time in 30 AD, Jesus went back to Nazareth again, with his disciples. This time, Jesus brought a group of men along with him, which partly explains why - this time - nobody there tried to kill him! Jesus had come home again – but it was two different homecomings.
The first time back in his hometown Synagogue, Jesus read from Isaiah. He claimed to fulfill it. Then he talked about gentiles until they were furious. Notice, Jesus gave no teaching at that time. There was no lesson. He did not teach. But the second time, Jesus began to teach. He showed wisdom and did miracles. So the people were amazed, but they still didn’t trust him. Instead of rage, this time they were merely offended. It was a whole different experience for everyone involved, even though it was the same thing in one way – it was Jesus going back home to visit the Nazareth Synagogue.
Once again, the point is simply that sometimes Jesus did things twice, but differently. That was four big examples.
Sometimes the Lord said things twice, too. Examples are common, but the point is simple. Any time Jesus said the same words does not mean those passages record the same moment. He might have repeated himself often, in different places, at different times.
Let me ask a few questions. If YOU were a traveling preacher… going from town to town… meeting similar people from the same culture group… preaching the same basic message over and over… trying to explain things to people they couldn’t really understand… what would YOU do? Would you avoid ever repeating anything you’d said, because you’d already said that once? Would you repeat everything word for word the same way at every stop? Or would it more naturally work out somewhere in between those two extremes? Wouldn’t you wind up repeating yourself eventually? Maybe a lot?
You’d say many things more than once. You’d say some things differently each time.
So did Jesus.
Here’s a totally different question. If you were WRITING one BRIEF biography of Jesus’ life… if you only had so many pages… if paper and ink were rare and expensive… if you had a very limited budget for making copies to pass around… if you knew your audience had to sit through an entire out-loud reading in one sitting… if you had many other important things to tell about the Lord… what would you WRITE? Would you record repetitive sayings? Would you include repeat events or very similar events? Would you use up extra space telling two different stories that were only slightly different? Would you spend much of your ink showing that Jesus taught with certain phrases at more than one stop?
No, you wouldn’t. Neither did Mark, Luke, Matthew or John.
But when we put all four together, using Mark and John for chronology, we see the whole thing in much better context. One of the keys is to trust that Luke did follow Mark for chronology, but each man recorded or omitted different things. (John's events fill in the gaps of chronology for Mark-Luke. And Matthew largely ignored chronology and arranged his events thematically instead.)
The examples given in this post don't explain away 100% of the 'problems' people find with gospel passages. But these are some of the major ones.
As it turns out, sometimes stuff DOES happen twice! ;)
God doesn’t always do things the same way. Jesus healed blind men several times. Once he touched the guy on the head. A different time, he had to touch the guy twice. Another time he spat on the dirt and rubbed mud on the blind guy’s eyes. Three healings. All different. On different occasions, He healed different ways.
But sometimes God DOES do things somewhat close to the same way twice. There are various examples in the four gospels where details that appear to be problems have been solved in this way. Some things happened twice. Sometimes Jesus said things he’d said before. Sometimes Jesus did things he’d done before. There were usually small differences, but anyone who heard both stories could be forgiven for thinking it was the same story.
Here are some situations where Jesus did or said almost the exact same thing twice.
(1) In Jerusalem, in April 29 AD, Jesus walked into the temple and saw moneychangers and moneylenders setting up their tables in the temple courtyard. That made him mad. So he did something about it. Four years later, in late March 33 AD, Jesus walked into the same temple. He saw the same thing. He had the same reaction. Both times, Jesus turned over their tables. The first time he made a whip to get their attention, but the second time, four years later, they knew who he was! Still, the same thing did happen in basically the same way, twice.
People used to assume this could only have happened once. But if you were the Son of God and this kind of thing made you mad, wouldn’t you get just as mad the second time? And you know these money lending guys made their living doing the same thing every year. So they must have been there both times Jesus showed up. So it happened twice.
(2) In Jericho, in March 33 AD, Jesus healed this one blind guy coming into town and then he healed two different guys coming out of town. The first guy, Bartimaeus, followed Jesus all day long, so the story got around. That’s how the next two guys decided to do exactly what Bartimaeus did. They went outside the city and waited. When Jesus came, they cried out the same way, using the same words they’d been told that Bartimaeus had used. This time, Jesus was moved with compassion and healed them by touch. (But Bartimaeus had been healed by Jesus’ words alone.)
You can understand how people might think these were two different versions of the same story, but it was two different events. The differences are just as key as the similarities, but the context of the day’s events in the city makes the whole situation clear. Jesus healed twice at Jericho.
(3) In Bethsaida, in the Summer of 29 AD, Jesus saw some friends of his by the sea. They were casting their nets. They hadn’t seen Jesus since they left him with that woman at the well in Samaria, but Peter, Andrew, James & John left their nets and followed the Lord. The whole group went over to Capernaum and watched Jesus speak in the Synagogue. Then they all walked back to Bethsaida. (The walk was less than 3 miles.) Jesus healed Peter’s mom-in-law, then word got out and Jesus healed people from all over town.
The next day, Jesus wanted to keep traveling on, but Peter wasn’t ready to leave home. So Jesus went on preaching in various towns and synagogues, for some weeks. By himself.
Some weeks or months later, Jesus came back to the sea at Bethsaida. Again, he saw his old friends. This time, they were cleaning their nets. This time, he didn’t just say “follow me”. This time, he borrowed their boat, taught a while, and then caught them some fish. This time, there was a dramatic scene between Jesus and Peter. And this time, the fishermen left more than their nets. They left everything. This was the second time fishermen left the sea to follow Jesus. It was totally different, but in certain ways, it seemed the same. In other words, "it happened twice".
That was three good examples of Jesus doing similar things on seperate occasions. Here’s one more.
(4) In Nazareth, in the summer of 29 AD, Jesus went back to Nazareth alone. His mother, father and brothers had just moved to Capernaum. His new friends from Bethsaida had left him in Samaria. His married sisters were in Nazareth, still, and so were some old family friends. But Jesus came alone when he went into their Synagogue. He spoke. Then the townspeople tried to push him over a cliff! Now then, a year later, some time in 30 AD, Jesus went back to Nazareth again, with his disciples. This time, Jesus brought a group of men along with him, which partly explains why - this time - nobody there tried to kill him! Jesus had come home again – but it was two different homecomings.
The first time back in his hometown Synagogue, Jesus read from Isaiah. He claimed to fulfill it. Then he talked about gentiles until they were furious. Notice, Jesus gave no teaching at that time. There was no lesson. He did not teach. But the second time, Jesus began to teach. He showed wisdom and did miracles. So the people were amazed, but they still didn’t trust him. Instead of rage, this time they were merely offended. It was a whole different experience for everyone involved, even though it was the same thing in one way – it was Jesus going back home to visit the Nazareth Synagogue.
Once again, the point is simply that sometimes Jesus did things twice, but differently. That was four big examples.
Sometimes the Lord said things twice, too. Examples are common, but the point is simple. Any time Jesus said the same words does not mean those passages record the same moment. He might have repeated himself often, in different places, at different times.
Let me ask a few questions. If YOU were a traveling preacher… going from town to town… meeting similar people from the same culture group… preaching the same basic message over and over… trying to explain things to people they couldn’t really understand… what would YOU do? Would you avoid ever repeating anything you’d said, because you’d already said that once? Would you repeat everything word for word the same way at every stop? Or would it more naturally work out somewhere in between those two extremes? Wouldn’t you wind up repeating yourself eventually? Maybe a lot?
You’d say many things more than once. You’d say some things differently each time.
So did Jesus.
Here’s a totally different question. If you were WRITING one BRIEF biography of Jesus’ life… if you only had so many pages… if paper and ink were rare and expensive… if you had a very limited budget for making copies to pass around… if you knew your audience had to sit through an entire out-loud reading in one sitting… if you had many other important things to tell about the Lord… what would you WRITE? Would you record repetitive sayings? Would you include repeat events or very similar events? Would you use up extra space telling two different stories that were only slightly different? Would you spend much of your ink showing that Jesus taught with certain phrases at more than one stop?
No, you wouldn’t. Neither did Mark, Luke, Matthew or John.
But when we put all four together, using Mark and John for chronology, we see the whole thing in much better context. One of the keys is to trust that Luke did follow Mark for chronology, but each man recorded or omitted different things. (John's events fill in the gaps of chronology for Mark-Luke. And Matthew largely ignored chronology and arranged his events thematically instead.)
The examples given in this post don't explain away 100% of the 'problems' people find with gospel passages. But these are some of the major ones.
As it turns out, sometimes stuff DOES happen twice! ;)
Tiberius vs Jesus
I mean come on - if you had to choose!?!? (Here's a hint - One of them's nicer!)
These days I work on Tiberius 'reign of terror' until I just can't stand it anymore. Besides, mastering the scholarly discussion about Tacitus on Sejanus throughout the 20's is just brutal. Syme, Hennig, Levick and Seager - oh my!
So after some hours of that, I switch over completely and work on the gospels in parallel. I'm cutting and pasting - actually scotch taping - my own four collumn "harmony" of the Gospels, from the NASB, based on Johnston Cheney's chronology and sequence in his book "The Life of Christ in Stereo". (I know, I shoulda done it in Greek. Gimme time.) I'm confirming many things and I'm learning a lot, too. I'm also testing my own theory of gospel origins along the way. All of that should give me lots to post about here, as we go...
I'll say two things for now. One, since you do get to choose, you should always pick Jesus over Tiberius. Duh! But if we're all very blessed, by this time next decade my summary of my summaries will be finished and you can see Jesus & Caesar's life stories, woven together. so won't that be nice!? :)
And Two: Dear SBL scholars and Bibliobloggers, The gospels are not merely texts. They are records of events. That means the EVENTS described by the text are more important than the WORDS of that text. I know you guys like to compare similar passages based on textual variances. I'm actually hoping to learn a lot more about just how y'all do that. But I still say the chronology and sequence of events is more critical by far. For one thing, it shows us that some 'similar passages' were actually unique events. (I'll be posting more about this very soon.)
But once again, everybody, pick Jesus! And pray for me to get through this Tiberius stuff! Those of you waiting for Year Books to start again, please hang in there. I can't tell you when the next one will post, but I can promise you this: For as long as there's breath in my body, and grace from the Lord, I will NOT quit at this task.
Tiberius. Sejanus. Antipas. Jesus.
Caesar. Herod. Christ.
The New Testament, Summarized with Historical Events.
One Year at a Time.
Yeah...
Won't that be great!!!???? :)
These days I work on Tiberius 'reign of terror' until I just can't stand it anymore. Besides, mastering the scholarly discussion about Tacitus on Sejanus throughout the 20's is just brutal. Syme, Hennig, Levick and Seager - oh my!
So after some hours of that, I switch over completely and work on the gospels in parallel. I'm cutting and pasting - actually scotch taping - my own four collumn "harmony" of the Gospels, from the NASB, based on Johnston Cheney's chronology and sequence in his book "The Life of Christ in Stereo". (I know, I shoulda done it in Greek. Gimme time.) I'm confirming many things and I'm learning a lot, too. I'm also testing my own theory of gospel origins along the way. All of that should give me lots to post about here, as we go...
I'll say two things for now. One, since you do get to choose, you should always pick Jesus over Tiberius. Duh! But if we're all very blessed, by this time next decade my summary of my summaries will be finished and you can see Jesus & Caesar's life stories, woven together. so won't that be nice!? :)
And Two: Dear SBL scholars and Bibliobloggers, The gospels are not merely texts. They are records of events. That means the EVENTS described by the text are more important than the WORDS of that text. I know you guys like to compare similar passages based on textual variances. I'm actually hoping to learn a lot more about just how y'all do that. But I still say the chronology and sequence of events is more critical by far. For one thing, it shows us that some 'similar passages' were actually unique events. (I'll be posting more about this very soon.)
But once again, everybody, pick Jesus! And pray for me to get through this Tiberius stuff! Those of you waiting for Year Books to start again, please hang in there. I can't tell you when the next one will post, but I can promise you this: For as long as there's breath in my body, and grace from the Lord, I will NOT quit at this task.
Tiberius. Sejanus. Antipas. Jesus.
Caesar. Herod. Christ.
The New Testament, Summarized with Historical Events.
One Year at a Time.
Yeah...
Won't that be great!!!???? :)
Read: Pagan Christianity
So many reviews of this book
have been biased on both sides, so I was thrilled to see this well balanced review today. I highly recommend it. Howard Snyder is not only well-educated enough to know the early church was very different from today's traditional forms. He's also confident enough in his own faith and practice that he doesn't mind saying so! I wish all reviewers were this honest, this even handed and this much unafraid about God's people. I say, "Speak the truth. Hang the consequences. And trust the Lord."
For the record, I think I totally agree with nearly every bit of Synder's review. No educated person should say or imply that traditional forms of church today are based just on the bible. Also, nobody should say that we *must* do church in any one certain way. And all groups of christians should do their best to live out God's life among one another whatever their context. Yes, all habitual patterns of behavior are "ritual" - that's fair to say. And any group rituals are in fact 'institutions'. Neither ritual nor institution *automatically* inhibits the moving of the spirit of God among a group of people. That is, not necessarily. Not always. But Snyder himself agrees that it does happen, often. Indeed, far too often.
I have only one thought to add of my own: The problem I see with "institutions" comes only when men attempt to establish *permanent* institutions. The goal seems to be that "THIS must outlive us." The belief seems to be that we can make it so. But "THIS" is just God's Life in People. And no ritual or institution will ever outlive the moving of the spirit of god within contrite human hearts. Nor should it. Because Christ in "us" is THE hope of glory. But the surprising thing is, establish-ers actually know all this. They constantly remind themselves to put more emphasis on people than they do on programs. They pray to God and exhort one another that each new generation of their congregation must revitalize the institution.
My questions are: 1) how long can that last? And 2) will the vitality outlast the institution?
So let's take Howard's "third view" - renewal. First of all, praise the Lord! For as long as the Lord dwells among you (y'all) that institution will be a living one. But the moment the spirit departs - or the people in touch with the spirit depart - you (y'all) will have left behind an empty, dead institution which will continue to go on without you. It might keep on pretending to be the house of God on earth. It might even get revitalized again, at times. But at all other times it will stand there, regardless. I simply suggest that such an empty 'christian' institution, left for dead - if it keeps on going - will be or have the potential to become the very enemy of God on this earth.
Frank Viola and George Barna may or may not attempt to establish any *permanent* institutions of their own. I hope not, but time will tell. I am rooting for them, but I am not in their corner. I am in God's corner. I stand for the church. I stand for any group of God's people who wants to get together and try to know Him together. Failure will come. Faith must persist. And the family of God must adjoin to her Head!
Christ in an "us" is THE hope of glory. The rest is just details.
So what happens next?
Protestant ministers are used to relying on the Bible as their source of authority. Poorly educated men (and dishonest men) are used to saying (or implying) that today's form of church is based just on the Bible. This is false. Such voices should at least be more careful with their claims. For their own sakes, they should read Howard Snyder's review AND take his advice to read Pagan Christianity.
Simple groups of believers should be free to continue experimenting. There are many ways for christians to pursue Jesus Christ. Also, Snyder's questions about contextualization are not to be answered in theory alone, but in practice. Professional clergy members should know in their conscience they must let God's people GO! Speak the truth. Hang the consequences. And trust the Lord.
Finally, any believers who want to constantly revitalize their institutions should continue to do so as well. A group of christians living out the life of the church is a wonderful thing to behold, no matter how it's organized. Personally, I wish we had NO permanent institutions. The picture Moses got of God's house was a Tent! But whatever. God will be God. And I trust Him to move in his people wherever they meet. There are challenges in both views of these things.
Frank Viola and George Barna have written a book that all christians should know the truth about. I desperately hope many will be inspired to try new forms of 'church'. But I also agree with Snyder's hope that many will revitalize the institutions they are part of. (At the very least, it's far better to have them stand alive, rather than dead, though expecting constant revitalization seems daft to me. I'd rather dismantle things into a movable "tent" status. But I don't expect all to adopt that odd view.)
Honestly, I deeply hope and pray, as Snyder said, that many things may change.
But I only have two predictions:
1) I predict the main impact of Pagan Christianity will be to force many within the 'institutional church' to grow up, religiously, and claim authority from their traditions - instead of to keep trying to claim things that aren't true about the Bible. In fact, this ought to happen eventually anyway.
2) I predict God will continue to work within any body of believers who will let Him work and work with Him. And Praise His Name for doing so!
--------------------------------
If you haven't yet, please read Howard Snyder's review.
And then go buy and read Pagan Christianity.
have been biased on both sides, so I was thrilled to see this well balanced review today. I highly recommend it. Howard Snyder is not only well-educated enough to know the early church was very different from today's traditional forms. He's also confident enough in his own faith and practice that he doesn't mind saying so! I wish all reviewers were this honest, this even handed and this much unafraid about God's people. I say, "Speak the truth. Hang the consequences. And trust the Lord."For the record, I think I totally agree with nearly every bit of Synder's review. No educated person should say or imply that traditional forms of church today are based just on the bible. Also, nobody should say that we *must* do church in any one certain way. And all groups of christians should do their best to live out God's life among one another whatever their context. Yes, all habitual patterns of behavior are "ritual" - that's fair to say. And any group rituals are in fact 'institutions'. Neither ritual nor institution *automatically* inhibits the moving of the spirit of God among a group of people. That is, not necessarily. Not always. But Snyder himself agrees that it does happen, often. Indeed, far too often.
I have only one thought to add of my own: The problem I see with "institutions" comes only when men attempt to establish *permanent* institutions. The goal seems to be that "THIS must outlive us." The belief seems to be that we can make it so. But "THIS" is just God's Life in People. And no ritual or institution will ever outlive the moving of the spirit of god within contrite human hearts. Nor should it. Because Christ in "us" is THE hope of glory. But the surprising thing is, establish-ers actually know all this. They constantly remind themselves to put more emphasis on people than they do on programs. They pray to God and exhort one another that each new generation of their congregation must revitalize the institution.
My questions are: 1) how long can that last? And 2) will the vitality outlast the institution?
So let's take Howard's "third view" - renewal. First of all, praise the Lord! For as long as the Lord dwells among you (y'all) that institution will be a living one. But the moment the spirit departs - or the people in touch with the spirit depart - you (y'all) will have left behind an empty, dead institution which will continue to go on without you. It might keep on pretending to be the house of God on earth. It might even get revitalized again, at times. But at all other times it will stand there, regardless. I simply suggest that such an empty 'christian' institution, left for dead - if it keeps on going - will be or have the potential to become the very enemy of God on this earth.
Frank Viola and George Barna may or may not attempt to establish any *permanent* institutions of their own. I hope not, but time will tell. I am rooting for them, but I am not in their corner. I am in God's corner. I stand for the church. I stand for any group of God's people who wants to get together and try to know Him together. Failure will come. Faith must persist. And the family of God must adjoin to her Head!
Christ in an "us" is THE hope of glory. The rest is just details.
So what happens next?
Protestant ministers are used to relying on the Bible as their source of authority. Poorly educated men (and dishonest men) are used to saying (or implying) that today's form of church is based just on the Bible. This is false. Such voices should at least be more careful with their claims. For their own sakes, they should read Howard Snyder's review AND take his advice to read Pagan Christianity.
Simple groups of believers should be free to continue experimenting. There are many ways for christians to pursue Jesus Christ. Also, Snyder's questions about contextualization are not to be answered in theory alone, but in practice. Professional clergy members should know in their conscience they must let God's people GO! Speak the truth. Hang the consequences. And trust the Lord.
Finally, any believers who want to constantly revitalize their institutions should continue to do so as well. A group of christians living out the life of the church is a wonderful thing to behold, no matter how it's organized. Personally, I wish we had NO permanent institutions. The picture Moses got of God's house was a Tent! But whatever. God will be God. And I trust Him to move in his people wherever they meet. There are challenges in both views of these things.
Frank Viola and George Barna have written a book that all christians should know the truth about. I desperately hope many will be inspired to try new forms of 'church'. But I also agree with Snyder's hope that many will revitalize the institutions they are part of. (At the very least, it's far better to have them stand alive, rather than dead, though expecting constant revitalization seems daft to me. I'd rather dismantle things into a movable "tent" status. But I don't expect all to adopt that odd view.)
Honestly, I deeply hope and pray, as Snyder said, that many things may change.
But I only have two predictions:
1) I predict the main impact of Pagan Christianity will be to force many within the 'institutional church' to grow up, religiously, and claim authority from their traditions - instead of to keep trying to claim things that aren't true about the Bible. In fact, this ought to happen eventually anyway.
2) I predict God will continue to work within any body of believers who will let Him work and work with Him. And Praise His Name for doing so!
--------------------------------
If you haven't yet, please read Howard Snyder's review.
And then go buy and read Pagan Christianity.
March 20, 4 BC
Here's a rewrite of another old piece from the files, which I felt like posting on tonight:
In my reconstruction of 4 BC, which I worked on from Nov.'06 to June'07, I gave the day of Herod's death as March 20. Even though I might have been the first one to suggest a specific date of death, I am/was fairly confident about it, give or take 1-2 days. But someday I'd like to work with a team of scholars to help strengthen the corroborating details of my reasoning. Until that day, here's a very simple record of what I considered at the time:
1) PTOLEMY:First of all, Ptolemy has to ride from Jericho to Antioch and back to Jerusalem before April 12th, when he leaves Jerusalem with Archelaus. The typical reading of Joesphus' lines about Varus coming to Caesarea overlooks the overlapping nature of Joesphus' constant flashbacks, flashforwards and asides which run heavily through his accounting of events in this busy, busy year. Such readings also ignore the logistic and chronological requirements of other events that must culminate by Pentecost on June 3rd, requirements which make it impossible for Varus to arrive so late in Caesarea.
2) EGYPT:Josephy & Mary have to "hear" about Archelaus ruling in Judea in such a way that causes them to be afraid. And the fear came before God "warned" Joseph in his dreams. So Joseph, Mary & Jesus cannot arrive in Judea before the slaughter on April 11. (Before that, there was no reason to fear Archelaus.) And according to Matthew, Joseph, Mary & Jesus have to leave Egypt the same night Herod dies.
Considering the travel requirements of each point leaves us with similar, overlapping ranges of dates or "windows of time" during which Herod's death could fall. But a final consideration simplifies the process of combining it all together.
Herod has to die early enough for Ptolemy's travel to end before April 11th, but Herod has to die late enough for Joseph's travel to end after April 11th.
When I figured all plausible travel times against this last consideration, only four dates seemed possible, and I felt like March 20th was the most likely, of the four.
If any scholars or graduate students want to research this further, my laptop holds dozens more pages of notes, calculations, worksheets and personal thoughts about these paramaters. I'd love to discuss the possibilities for further scholarship with someone who's interested. In fact, there is much more to say about Sabinus, Varus, Ptolemy & Caesarea alone. As far as I can tell, the year Four BC had never been reconstructed month-by-month and event-by-event before I did it. I stand by my efforts, but I'm sure they could use refinement. It's a complicated year. It deserves fuller scholarly treatment. And YOU, dear reader, may be or become the person who can do it. And I hope my work helps... so contact me, please! :)
Without help in this area, my online reconstruction may be as far as I can go... for now.
Check it out!
And yes, hopefully it will also be in print... someday. :)
In my reconstruction of 4 BC, which I worked on from Nov.'06 to June'07, I gave the day of Herod's death as March 20. Even though I might have been the first one to suggest a specific date of death, I am/was fairly confident about it, give or take 1-2 days. But someday I'd like to work with a team of scholars to help strengthen the corroborating details of my reasoning. Until that day, here's a very simple record of what I considered at the time:
1) PTOLEMY:First of all, Ptolemy has to ride from Jericho to Antioch and back to Jerusalem before April 12th, when he leaves Jerusalem with Archelaus. The typical reading of Joesphus' lines about Varus coming to Caesarea overlooks the overlapping nature of Joesphus' constant flashbacks, flashforwards and asides which run heavily through his accounting of events in this busy, busy year. Such readings also ignore the logistic and chronological requirements of other events that must culminate by Pentecost on June 3rd, requirements which make it impossible for Varus to arrive so late in Caesarea.
2) EGYPT:Josephy & Mary have to "hear" about Archelaus ruling in Judea in such a way that causes them to be afraid. And the fear came before God "warned" Joseph in his dreams. So Joseph, Mary & Jesus cannot arrive in Judea before the slaughter on April 11. (Before that, there was no reason to fear Archelaus.) And according to Matthew, Joseph, Mary & Jesus have to leave Egypt the same night Herod dies.
Considering the travel requirements of each point leaves us with similar, overlapping ranges of dates or "windows of time" during which Herod's death could fall. But a final consideration simplifies the process of combining it all together.
Herod has to die early enough for Ptolemy's travel to end before April 11th, but Herod has to die late enough for Joseph's travel to end after April 11th.
When I figured all plausible travel times against this last consideration, only four dates seemed possible, and I felt like March 20th was the most likely, of the four.
If any scholars or graduate students want to research this further, my laptop holds dozens more pages of notes, calculations, worksheets and personal thoughts about these paramaters. I'd love to discuss the possibilities for further scholarship with someone who's interested. In fact, there is much more to say about Sabinus, Varus, Ptolemy & Caesarea alone. As far as I can tell, the year Four BC had never been reconstructed month-by-month and event-by-event before I did it. I stand by my efforts, but I'm sure they could use refinement. It's a complicated year. It deserves fuller scholarly treatment. And YOU, dear reader, may be or become the person who can do it. And I hope my work helps... so contact me, please! :)
Without help in this area, my online reconstruction may be as far as I can go... for now.
Check it out!
And yes, hopefully it will also be in print... someday. :)
Keep At It, Y'all
The Society of Biblical Literature always seemed like an odd mix to me in years past. My first college degree was a "BS" in Literature - actually a "B.A." - that's an old English Major joke. And it's just as old of a joke for Biblical Studies scholars to point out their field has the same initials. So the first time I scanned the topics of the SBL convention sessions I was pretty sure I saw both kinds of BS - in spades. But now after wading into the 'biblio-blog-o-sphere' a bit, reading a LOT more and interviewing some seminary people I'm starting to get the lay of the land a little bit better. And in at least one way, I can tell I was right from the start. It's a mix. That said, here's one awesome quote from a PhD student blogging from the International SBL in Aukland, NZ:
"...the kinds of differences in wording between gospel accounts could not be the result of copying errors, but could quite easily be the result of oral transmission..."
AND
"...Jesus may well have used some of the techniques employed by rabbis to transmit oral tradition to train his disciples to pass on his teachings... "
Those are the parts I like, anyway. They're also the parts my longtime readers should appreciate the most. But folks who want details should see Judy's whole post, here.
Keep at it, Biblio-Scholars. It's always good to know at least some of y'all are doing some really good work! ;)
"...the kinds of differences in wording between gospel accounts could not be the result of copying errors, but could quite easily be the result of oral transmission..."
AND
"...Jesus may well have used some of the techniques employed by rabbis to transmit oral tradition to train his disciples to pass on his teachings... "
Those are the parts I like, anyway. They're also the parts my longtime readers should appreciate the most. But folks who want details should see Judy's whole post, here.
Keep at it, Biblio-Scholars. It's always good to know at least some of y'all are doing some really good work! ;)
The Point
Why is the previous post (on Herod's Temple Pavement) so important? Because I don't feel like I see enough "nuts and bolts thinking" in New Testament studies, generally. Everything in this whole "BS" world is "theological" based on IDEA centered thinking. One world-renowned star of the field recently put out a book he titled simply, "Paul" and yet it's really all about interpreting Paul's thinking.
Which is fine. But then, why not call the book "Paul's Thinking"?
I know. I taught English once. It's called "Synechdoche" - like the phrase "head of cattle". You mean 20 whole cows, but you say "20 head". I get it. To save space, the theologians just say "Paul". I know, I know.
But still... it's a hugely telling point.
The fact that the word "Paul" is available for use as a TERM says a lot about what it is NOT being used for. In fact, a book written today about Paul's life would be called "Paul's Travels" or "Paul's Life".
That just seems backwards to me.
Is it me?
Which is fine. But then, why not call the book "Paul's Thinking"?
I know. I taught English once. It's called "Synechdoche" - like the phrase "head of cattle". You mean 20 whole cows, but you say "20 head". I get it. To save space, the theologians just say "Paul". I know, I know.
But still... it's a hugely telling point.
The fact that the word "Paul" is available for use as a TERM says a lot about what it is NOT being used for. In fact, a book written today about Paul's life would be called "Paul's Travels" or "Paul's Life".
That just seems backwards to me.
Is it me?
No Temple Pavement
Here's another great book I won't have time to read. If I'm lucky, I'll get far enough down my checklist to go find this one and at least skim the index. I'll look for the words "paving" or "pavement" or failing that, "floor", "earth" or "ground". I'll be weirdly excited if there's any attention paid to this at all.
Sigh. The questions we ask determine the studies we pursue. But the questions I like to ask tend to get met with silence, which always means one of two things: Either yes, I'm the idiot, or else yes, I really may be onto something that's been overlooked. Sigh. Such is the task...
But here's what Wycherley said about Greek Temples: "To preserve the place inviolate the limits had to be defined by simple marks or boundary stones, or more effectively by a fence or wall, making an enclosure. If the cult was to be regularly carried on, an altar was necessary. Altar and boundary were the essentials; an image of the deity might be set up, and a temple might be built; and in large shrines a great variety of buildings were ultimately added."
This sums up the whole heart of my view on Herod's Temple: paving was just not a priority. Wycherley says even the temple and statue weren't priorities, for the Greeks, so how could paving be? If boundary stones around an altar is all it took, then most temples in antiquity had grass or dirt floor courtyards, as everything else had a greater priority. I still want more evidence, but the conclusion seems sound...
Paving the courtyard was, in fact, the absolute last priority as it was the least necessary of all constructions that could have conceivably been built. More, paving stones would require sandals for walking on in the sun, whereas packed earth or grass would be cool enough for bare feet. So a paved courtyard just naturally ought to be the height of sophistication in terms of expansion options. In the ancient world, it was the least natural, least needed, least conceivable thing you could even think about adding to your temple.
Here's another argument. In Jerusalem in the early 60's AD, if a brand new pavement is NOT what Agrippa Junior's workmen were putting in then WHAT, pray tell, was so much less important that the paving got finished before it? The walls? The covered walkways? The storage closets and side rooms? The giant covered pavilion on the south side? None of that could possibly have seemed less of a priority than the extremely novel, primarily aesthetic, *somewhat impractical* insertion of a smooth, flat surface for walking on.
(*How impractical? Aside from burning all the bare feet in the summer, especially at that elevation, it would now have to be swept and not just for dirt. Now, rocks and solid objects would offer absolutely zero "give" beneath them when stepped on. Ankles could be broken, especially in a crowd. But even a hard, packed earth floor would give way to some degree. Also, falling on pavement is much more dangerous than falling on even very rocky earth.*)
See? When I talk myself into a fury, I get all convinced again! ;) But who else has opinions on this? I can't find anyone asking these specific questions.
So here's my conclusion, again:
The Temple of Herod had packed earth courtyard. The pilgrims of 4 BC found enough stones sticking out of it's surface to run off a small army. Jesus drew in the dirt. ("Earth" is the greek word in John 8:6.) And when Agrippa Junior needed a new project for these particular skilled workers he let them go on paving the main street through the Tyropoean Valley.
There's no text or archaeology that confirms this. But the collection of facts as a whole simply demands that this must be the case.
It's plausible. It fits chronologically. It makes more sense of all pertinent texts than as if it were otherwise. And finally, it's realistic and logistically sound.
This is nuts and bolts thinking.
Archaeologists should be able to tell me about the soil under that pavement, today. Is it extremely rocky? (I'm guessing that's a safe bet.) Then that fits with Josephus' account of the passover riot in 4 BC. Here's another question, layman style: You know how streets in Europe look like they're newer than the houses they run up against? You know, because the street looks as if it overlaps the building above its foundations?
Is the Temple Pavement extant at all to the point where we can see similar positioning? That is, was the pavement built before the walls or after? And does the pavement appear to be pre-planned or as an afterthought? I suggest that if the pavement comes "up high" like the streets of Rome today come "up high" on their buildings - then that pavement was an afterthought.
The Temple was complete by 29 AD. Agrippa II just had the courtyard paved, 30 years later. But in 33 AD when Jesus said, "Not one stone will be left upon another" he was indeed looking at the whole complex, entirely completed.
Except for the pavement. :)
Sigh. The questions we ask determine the studies we pursue. But the questions I like to ask tend to get met with silence, which always means one of two things: Either yes, I'm the idiot, or else yes, I really may be onto something that's been overlooked. Sigh. Such is the task...
But here's what Wycherley said about Greek Temples: "To preserve the place inviolate the limits had to be defined by simple marks or boundary stones, or more effectively by a fence or wall, making an enclosure. If the cult was to be regularly carried on, an altar was necessary. Altar and boundary were the essentials; an image of the deity might be set up, and a temple might be built; and in large shrines a great variety of buildings were ultimately added."
This sums up the whole heart of my view on Herod's Temple: paving was just not a priority. Wycherley says even the temple and statue weren't priorities, for the Greeks, so how could paving be? If boundary stones around an altar is all it took, then most temples in antiquity had grass or dirt floor courtyards, as everything else had a greater priority. I still want more evidence, but the conclusion seems sound...
Paving the courtyard was, in fact, the absolute last priority as it was the least necessary of all constructions that could have conceivably been built. More, paving stones would require sandals for walking on in the sun, whereas packed earth or grass would be cool enough for bare feet. So a paved courtyard just naturally ought to be the height of sophistication in terms of expansion options. In the ancient world, it was the least natural, least needed, least conceivable thing you could even think about adding to your temple.
Here's another argument. In Jerusalem in the early 60's AD, if a brand new pavement is NOT what Agrippa Junior's workmen were putting in then WHAT, pray tell, was so much less important that the paving got finished before it? The walls? The covered walkways? The storage closets and side rooms? The giant covered pavilion on the south side? None of that could possibly have seemed less of a priority than the extremely novel, primarily aesthetic, *somewhat impractical* insertion of a smooth, flat surface for walking on.
(*How impractical? Aside from burning all the bare feet in the summer, especially at that elevation, it would now have to be swept and not just for dirt. Now, rocks and solid objects would offer absolutely zero "give" beneath them when stepped on. Ankles could be broken, especially in a crowd. But even a hard, packed earth floor would give way to some degree. Also, falling on pavement is much more dangerous than falling on even very rocky earth.*)
See? When I talk myself into a fury, I get all convinced again! ;) But who else has opinions on this? I can't find anyone asking these specific questions.
So here's my conclusion, again:
The Temple of Herod had packed earth courtyard. The pilgrims of 4 BC found enough stones sticking out of it's surface to run off a small army. Jesus drew in the dirt. ("Earth" is the greek word in John 8:6.) And when Agrippa Junior needed a new project for these particular skilled workers he let them go on paving the main street through the Tyropoean Valley.
There's no text or archaeology that confirms this. But the collection of facts as a whole simply demands that this must be the case.
It's plausible. It fits chronologically. It makes more sense of all pertinent texts than as if it were otherwise. And finally, it's realistic and logistically sound.
This is nuts and bolts thinking.
Archaeologists should be able to tell me about the soil under that pavement, today. Is it extremely rocky? (I'm guessing that's a safe bet.) Then that fits with Josephus' account of the passover riot in 4 BC. Here's another question, layman style: You know how streets in Europe look like they're newer than the houses they run up against? You know, because the street looks as if it overlaps the building above its foundations?
Is the Temple Pavement extant at all to the point where we can see similar positioning? That is, was the pavement built before the walls or after? And does the pavement appear to be pre-planned or as an afterthought? I suggest that if the pavement comes "up high" like the streets of Rome today come "up high" on their buildings - then that pavement was an afterthought.
The Temple was complete by 29 AD. Agrippa II just had the courtyard paved, 30 years later. But in 33 AD when Jesus said, "Not one stone will be left upon another" he was indeed looking at the whole complex, entirely completed.
Except for the pavement. :)
Antipas and Sejanus
I've been going thru Tacitus & Dio backwards, looking for two things. One, I feel like I get a better view of developing trends with the benefit of hindsight. So the first 'thing' I'm looking for is just that - development in the situation. Ongoing 'plotlines' so to speak. The second thing I'm looking for is anything that could have affected Herod Antipas' level of confidence or apprehension about his own position. Here are my conclusions, so far:
----------------------------------------------
Generally, I'm finding there were lots of reasons for powerful people to fear Tiberius. Even knowing that Tacitus pumps up the negativity on such things, the overall train of events is fairly overwhelming. Under Augustus, most powerful people weren't stupid enough to cross him. But under Tiberius, the Emperor's entire attitude, actions and style gave every Roman person of status a serious reason to fear for their lives - though of course, at times, some had more cause to fear than did others.
Even an eastern 'client ruler' like Antipas had to take serious notice, especially when Tiberius took over Cappadocia and Commagene (17/18 AD) and continued raising Rome's influence over Armenia & Thrace (18/19 AD). Antipas knew the history of the region and could see the general trend was ongoing assimilation, usually leading to takeover. The general trend in Rome seemed to be that Tiberius could put men down for any excuse whatsoever, and the sources are in agreement that people of that day - with few exceptions - saw no consistent way to assess whose position would or would not remain secure. Away from Rome, apparently, it was the same.
This brings me to my first simple conclusion, purposely understated (for now). If everyone of status was cautious about Tiberius to some degree, then Herod Antipas was cautious about Tiberius to some degree. The only real room for debate here should be the question of whether we can tell, practically speaking, just how cautious Antipas was - or should have been. This issue will require some work, to say the least.
The next important question is this: was there a change in the 'caution level' displayed by Herod Antipas during the rise to power of Aelius Sejanus? This question, of course, is similar (perhaps related) to studies of Pontius Pilate in the past 60 years to the point - was there a change in Pilate's governing behavior over Israel after Sejanus' fall? (Scholars generally agree that there was, but differ as to the details of why.) Now, asking this same question of Antipas is similar in some ways, but free from the debate about accusations of antisemitism leveled at Pilate & Sejanus since 1948. (For more, see the wonderful Introduction to Helen Bond's work on Pilate.) Either way one judges Pilate on antisemitism, he does seem to be more cautious after Sejanus' fall. (This is based largely, but not totally, on his behavior during the trial of Jesus in 33 AD.)
So Pilate gets more cautious after October, 31 AD. In my personal opinion, so does Antipas.
Therefore, the next series of questions must review scrutiny about Antipas' alleged relationship with Sejanus. Harold Hoehner (who wrote Herod Antipas) credited the accusations by Agrippa, but Dieter Hennig (who wrote in German on Aelius Seianus) gave them extremely slight regard. Of course, Hennig gave the complex system of allegations extremely slight attention, as well. So I'm inclined to feel that much more study should be done. (I can't read German, but I can read his index and scan the page, which shows that Antipas gets barely one whole paragraph in Hennig's entire book! A friend translated that paragraph for me, and I'm hoping to get a professional rendering soon. But without knowing German, I'll have to forgo saying much more on Hennig. Any help here, from folks "out there" would be hugely appreciated.)
The issues surrounding Agrippa's accusations (against Antipas, regarding Sejanus, reported to Caligula, in 39 AD, for personal gain, all of which is told by Josephus) are indeed complicated. They may defy mastery, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The fact that Antipas couldn't deny one part of it suggests that it may not have been all false, at least. For now, my only strong suggestion on this important topic is that it absolutely deserves much more attention by serious scholars - hopefully those much more qualified than myself to make valid assessments on the matter. But I'll definitely continue trying to spark their interest with my personal ideas! ;)
Because I'm just blogging here (and because of the obvious difficulties just mentioned), I'm going to also forgo further discussion of Agrippa's accusations (for now) and just introduce my own big thought on the larger issue at hand. I'm not even going to try and make this next statement well-refined, either. This is my gut.
Herod Antipas had to have some kind of alliance or personal agreement with Sejanus at least by 27/28 AD, because otherwise he never would have made such a boneheaded move as to break his marriage alliance with Nabatea at the risk of creating an instability which could infuriate Tiberius - and all merely for a newer or a younger wife!
No way. Instead, Antipas had to believe he was safe from whatever vindictive entreaties King Aretas would surely have sent to Rome on behalf of his poor rejected daughter. Why else could Antipas possibly decide this was a good, wise or safe move unless he believed Sejanus would protect him from Tiberius and put off any complaints from Aretas?
That is my basic hypothesis. There are yet more considerations.
What were the specific benefits or political advantages for Antipas in his decision to marry Herodias? It wasn't just so John the Baptist could have something else to yell about! It wasn't only (though I personally believe it was partly) so that God Almighty could manipulate Herod into getting John off the stage. And most of all, it can't possibly have been pure lust. That's the most ignorant idea of all. Antipas surely would not have switched marriages simply for physical passion, unless she held some special power to excite an old tetrarch, just pushing 50 in those years (which is conceivable, but unlikely). Herod wasn't that stupid, and as even the worst chauvinist would probably say, nobody's that good in bed, to throw away your whole kingdom. So the lust argument doesn't add up. Rather, since Herod Antipas' first marriage had been for political advantage, we should expect his second marriage to include the same consideration. To say the least, marriage to Herodias must have held some greater promise for the aging Antipas than a merely physical entanglement.
Far more likely, the motivation to wed Herodias must have been motivated at least partly because of Herodias' strong family connection to Antonia [through her mother, Bereniece]. Of Roman women at the time, none were more well connected at the very highest levels, and it could be argued no man either, including Sejanus, had a more secure position than Antonia's, given that Antonia was Augustus' niece, Tiberius' sister-in-law and mother of the widely beloved, departed Germanicus. Her grandsons were still greatly favored by the people of Rome, and even if their mother Agrippina ('the elder') was in jeopardy, Antonia herself remained above reproach regarding her daughter-in-law's various personal offenses.
Now, it's a bit odd to think someone in 27/28 AD could ally themselves with both Sejanus AND Antonia, especially as many already suspected that Tiberius' prefect was plotting to kill the royal matron's grandsons [Caligula's older brothers, who lasted until 30 and 33]. But despite the unlikelihood that anyone in Rome could forge both alliances, Antipas was based overseas! And the method of arranging one alliance by marriage and the other by the promise of mutual benefit was a uniquely crafty strategy, especially if the alliance with Sejanus was kept a secret (as Agrippa's revelation suggests that it was).
There is plenty of evidence to suggest Antipas was just cagey enough to pull this off.
The rest of Herod Antipas' political record is spotlessly impressive, and his 42 year rule holds no consequential mistakes. (None, that is, other than alienating his brother-in-law/nephew Agrippa in 32 AD. In fact, asking Caligula for the title of "King" is not what brought Antipas down - it was the letter from Agrippa that just happened to show up when Antipas was there with the Emperor.) Antipas' fatal error only came by underestimating a mooching, down-on-his-luck nephew, who was probably fighting depression and seeming very unimpressive - and this error took seven years to bear its bad fruit. There are no other mistakes in Antipas' entire career that came at any significant cost. To the point, Herod Antipas was very good at what he did, ruling longer even than his Great father. He would never have divorced the Nabatean without some insurance.
There is much more to say to extend Antipas' great credit as a governor. The tetrarch's major decisions and actions known to us through history show us a man who knew how to play the game of maintaining stability AND staying on the Emperor's good side. Two strong examples of cultivated stability are Antipas' constructions at Sepphoris and Tiberias, which were built as cosmopolitan enlargements to appease, keep occupied and make proud his own landed gentry - not merely for Antipas' pride or imperial flattery. Antipas knew unhappy upper class citizens were the downfall of his brother Archelaus and that happy, busy ones produced a good, steady tax flow and earned positive favor from Rome. In terms of Imperial favor, Antipas' later efforts to earn Tiberius' praise (in 36 AD) were set to pay dividends at the minor cost of losing Vitellius' good will - and that cost was only delay, until Tiberius suddenly died. [The Syrian Governor was dallying at Jerusalem just before Pentecost - not Passover - when word came of Tiberius' death, releiving Vitellius of his duty to attack Nabatea for Antipas, as ordered by Tiberius.] In perfect fact, Antipas would still have gotten his way perfectly, if slowly, if Tiberius had only lived a bit longer. So the point remains. Antipas knew how to manipulate things well enough at the highest levels to help ensure his own position.
In fact, the very beginnings of Herod Antipas' career - in the year's worth of events surrounding his father's death (5/4 BC) - required subtle and deft manipulation of tenuous and constantly changing dynamics. That Antipas in time proved to be vastly more successful than his brother Archelaus is not only foreseeable by Herod the Great's initial decision (6/5 BC) to give Antipas all Israel, but the talents and strategies Anitpas would use to effect his 42 years of success were already on display in the interplay of events between Jericho and Caesar's final audience in October of 4 BC. The fact that Antipas played his cards not only well but masterfully, and to maximum possible effect, is clearly evident if one but looks carefully.
In all these ways, Antipas proved himself again and again to be a wise, capable ruler, totally in control during all stages of his career. Barring that final surprise by the constantly unsatisfied Agrippa (whose rise to status was of such complex circumstances as to be unforseable), Antipas literally never made a single wrong move, spanning five decades of considerable change, both in Rome and the east. That no other ruler west of Parthia save Tiberius himself accomplished even nearly such a feat is incredibly impressive.
To even consider that such a man made one huge mistake by thinking with his groin - this not only defies all reasonable expectations, it may also betray a lack of focus on the situation. True, many writers assume Antipas and Sejanus were allied, but serious scholarly justification has yet to be produced, since Hoehner. And given Hennig's near dismissal of the relationship, further treatment seems to be very necessary. As far as I can tell, it has not been done. But if any reader has access to articles or other works I've somehow overlooked, please let me know.
It should also be noted that the argument attempted here, which advances beyond the conclusions of Hoehner's essential volume, is based primarily on the assumption that Antipas' first marriage was in fact an alliance with Nabatea, but this should be undeniable. How often does the ruler of a country marry the neighboring king's daughter and NOT forge a treaty from such an alliance, unless the action sparks a war instead?
My whole contention, then, is that there is no other reasonable way to explain Antipas' divorce of his longtime Arabian bride UNLESS the tetrarch has assurances from Sejanus that King Aretas would have no success in prosecuting the divorce and breach of treaty in Rome. Whether or not Aretas DID make such attempts [which of course, we have no record of] or MIGHT have made such attempts is not actually within the question. The only pertinent fact is that Aretas COULD have made such attempts, and so Antipas would have known to be prepared for that eventuality - especially during the political turmoil of those years, when Tiberius absolutely COULD have been expected to use any complaint as a pretext for claiming all of Galilee. We've already seen that the times were extremely dangerous for Roman nobles and foreign client rulers, equally. Without a deal before his divorce, Herod Antipas would have risked everything against the very large probability that Tiberius - sooner or later - WOULD take it from him.
Simply put, Herod Antipas was not such a man to take such a risk. Therefore, he must have felt there was no risk. Naturally, the only reliable barrier to any complaints from Aretas would have been Sejanus.
That is why Antipas simply must have made a deal with Sejanus.
The question of what Sejanus expected to get out of that deal is another issue for further study, but it may have something to do with (1) the military situation in the East [Tiberius was already keeping Lamia from the Syrian Legions and would not have allowed Sejanus anywhere near the Egyptian ones], (2) the proximity of Galilee to Rome's breadbasket (Egypt) and (3) the enormous cache of armor and weaponry Agrippa cited. So this armor - which Antipas did not deny the existence of, which Agrippa had the greatest opportunity to observe during his 'mooching' years from 29 to 32 AD, and which no one of Antipas' meager resources could have assembled (secretly) in any short period of time - may be precisely what Sejanus expected to receive from Antipas.
Of course, this final question must rest until a fuller treatment may be given. In fact, it may not be possible to conclude what, if anything, Sejanus would have expected from Antipas. It's even possible Sejanus would make such an alliance merely for unspecified favors to be named at some future time. But the armor creation as one step toward a military contingency plan is not entirely implausible, showing at least one reason why that the whole alliance is far from implausible from Sejanus' perspective.
Again, we may never know entirely all the reasons WHY Sejanus or Antipas made their alliance, but for all the reasons discussed here above, they simply must have done so.
----------------------------------------------
Now, hopefully, someone more qualified than Bill Heroman will eventually level their scholarly efforts towards examining these claims and considerations with more academic rigor. But this is my contribution.
In the meantime, I will of course continue striving to improve my own efforts...
----------------------------------------------
Generally, I'm finding there were lots of reasons for powerful people to fear Tiberius. Even knowing that Tacitus pumps up the negativity on such things, the overall train of events is fairly overwhelming. Under Augustus, most powerful people weren't stupid enough to cross him. But under Tiberius, the Emperor's entire attitude, actions and style gave every Roman person of status a serious reason to fear for their lives - though of course, at times, some had more cause to fear than did others.
Even an eastern 'client ruler' like Antipas had to take serious notice, especially when Tiberius took over Cappadocia and Commagene (17/18 AD) and continued raising Rome's influence over Armenia & Thrace (18/19 AD). Antipas knew the history of the region and could see the general trend was ongoing assimilation, usually leading to takeover. The general trend in Rome seemed to be that Tiberius could put men down for any excuse whatsoever, and the sources are in agreement that people of that day - with few exceptions - saw no consistent way to assess whose position would or would not remain secure. Away from Rome, apparently, it was the same.
This brings me to my first simple conclusion, purposely understated (for now). If everyone of status was cautious about Tiberius to some degree, then Herod Antipas was cautious about Tiberius to some degree. The only real room for debate here should be the question of whether we can tell, practically speaking, just how cautious Antipas was - or should have been. This issue will require some work, to say the least.
The next important question is this: was there a change in the 'caution level' displayed by Herod Antipas during the rise to power of Aelius Sejanus? This question, of course, is similar (perhaps related) to studies of Pontius Pilate in the past 60 years to the point - was there a change in Pilate's governing behavior over Israel after Sejanus' fall? (Scholars generally agree that there was, but differ as to the details of why.) Now, asking this same question of Antipas is similar in some ways, but free from the debate about accusations of antisemitism leveled at Pilate & Sejanus since 1948. (For more, see the wonderful Introduction to Helen Bond's work on Pilate.) Either way one judges Pilate on antisemitism, he does seem to be more cautious after Sejanus' fall. (This is based largely, but not totally, on his behavior during the trial of Jesus in 33 AD.)
So Pilate gets more cautious after October, 31 AD. In my personal opinion, so does Antipas.
Therefore, the next series of questions must review scrutiny about Antipas' alleged relationship with Sejanus. Harold Hoehner (who wrote Herod Antipas) credited the accusations by Agrippa, but Dieter Hennig (who wrote in German on Aelius Seianus) gave them extremely slight regard. Of course, Hennig gave the complex system of allegations extremely slight attention, as well. So I'm inclined to feel that much more study should be done. (I can't read German, but I can read his index and scan the page, which shows that Antipas gets barely one whole paragraph in Hennig's entire book! A friend translated that paragraph for me, and I'm hoping to get a professional rendering soon. But without knowing German, I'll have to forgo saying much more on Hennig. Any help here, from folks "out there" would be hugely appreciated.)
The issues surrounding Agrippa's accusations (against Antipas, regarding Sejanus, reported to Caligula, in 39 AD, for personal gain, all of which is told by Josephus) are indeed complicated. They may defy mastery, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The fact that Antipas couldn't deny one part of it suggests that it may not have been all false, at least. For now, my only strong suggestion on this important topic is that it absolutely deserves much more attention by serious scholars - hopefully those much more qualified than myself to make valid assessments on the matter. But I'll definitely continue trying to spark their interest with my personal ideas! ;)
Because I'm just blogging here (and because of the obvious difficulties just mentioned), I'm going to also forgo further discussion of Agrippa's accusations (for now) and just introduce my own big thought on the larger issue at hand. I'm not even going to try and make this next statement well-refined, either. This is my gut.
Herod Antipas had to have some kind of alliance or personal agreement with Sejanus at least by 27/28 AD, because otherwise he never would have made such a boneheaded move as to break his marriage alliance with Nabatea at the risk of creating an instability which could infuriate Tiberius - and all merely for a newer or a younger wife!
No way. Instead, Antipas had to believe he was safe from whatever vindictive entreaties King Aretas would surely have sent to Rome on behalf of his poor rejected daughter. Why else could Antipas possibly decide this was a good, wise or safe move unless he believed Sejanus would protect him from Tiberius and put off any complaints from Aretas?
That is my basic hypothesis. There are yet more considerations.
What were the specific benefits or political advantages for Antipas in his decision to marry Herodias? It wasn't just so John the Baptist could have something else to yell about! It wasn't only (though I personally believe it was partly) so that God Almighty could manipulate Herod into getting John off the stage. And most of all, it can't possibly have been pure lust. That's the most ignorant idea of all. Antipas surely would not have switched marriages simply for physical passion, unless she held some special power to excite an old tetrarch, just pushing 50 in those years (which is conceivable, but unlikely). Herod wasn't that stupid, and as even the worst chauvinist would probably say, nobody's that good in bed, to throw away your whole kingdom. So the lust argument doesn't add up. Rather, since Herod Antipas' first marriage had been for political advantage, we should expect his second marriage to include the same consideration. To say the least, marriage to Herodias must have held some greater promise for the aging Antipas than a merely physical entanglement.
Far more likely, the motivation to wed Herodias must have been motivated at least partly because of Herodias' strong family connection to Antonia [through her mother, Bereniece]. Of Roman women at the time, none were more well connected at the very highest levels, and it could be argued no man either, including Sejanus, had a more secure position than Antonia's, given that Antonia was Augustus' niece, Tiberius' sister-in-law and mother of the widely beloved, departed Germanicus. Her grandsons were still greatly favored by the people of Rome, and even if their mother Agrippina ('the elder') was in jeopardy, Antonia herself remained above reproach regarding her daughter-in-law's various personal offenses.
Now, it's a bit odd to think someone in 27/28 AD could ally themselves with both Sejanus AND Antonia, especially as many already suspected that Tiberius' prefect was plotting to kill the royal matron's grandsons [Caligula's older brothers, who lasted until 30 and 33]. But despite the unlikelihood that anyone in Rome could forge both alliances, Antipas was based overseas! And the method of arranging one alliance by marriage and the other by the promise of mutual benefit was a uniquely crafty strategy, especially if the alliance with Sejanus was kept a secret (as Agrippa's revelation suggests that it was).
There is plenty of evidence to suggest Antipas was just cagey enough to pull this off.
The rest of Herod Antipas' political record is spotlessly impressive, and his 42 year rule holds no consequential mistakes. (None, that is, other than alienating his brother-in-law/nephew Agrippa in 32 AD. In fact, asking Caligula for the title of "King" is not what brought Antipas down - it was the letter from Agrippa that just happened to show up when Antipas was there with the Emperor.) Antipas' fatal error only came by underestimating a mooching, down-on-his-luck nephew, who was probably fighting depression and seeming very unimpressive - and this error took seven years to bear its bad fruit. There are no other mistakes in Antipas' entire career that came at any significant cost. To the point, Herod Antipas was very good at what he did, ruling longer even than his Great father. He would never have divorced the Nabatean without some insurance.
There is much more to say to extend Antipas' great credit as a governor. The tetrarch's major decisions and actions known to us through history show us a man who knew how to play the game of maintaining stability AND staying on the Emperor's good side. Two strong examples of cultivated stability are Antipas' constructions at Sepphoris and Tiberias, which were built as cosmopolitan enlargements to appease, keep occupied and make proud his own landed gentry - not merely for Antipas' pride or imperial flattery. Antipas knew unhappy upper class citizens were the downfall of his brother Archelaus and that happy, busy ones produced a good, steady tax flow and earned positive favor from Rome. In terms of Imperial favor, Antipas' later efforts to earn Tiberius' praise (in 36 AD) were set to pay dividends at the minor cost of losing Vitellius' good will - and that cost was only delay, until Tiberius suddenly died. [The Syrian Governor was dallying at Jerusalem just before Pentecost - not Passover - when word came of Tiberius' death, releiving Vitellius of his duty to attack Nabatea for Antipas, as ordered by Tiberius.] In perfect fact, Antipas would still have gotten his way perfectly, if slowly, if Tiberius had only lived a bit longer. So the point remains. Antipas knew how to manipulate things well enough at the highest levels to help ensure his own position.
In fact, the very beginnings of Herod Antipas' career - in the year's worth of events surrounding his father's death (5/4 BC) - required subtle and deft manipulation of tenuous and constantly changing dynamics. That Antipas in time proved to be vastly more successful than his brother Archelaus is not only foreseeable by Herod the Great's initial decision (6/5 BC) to give Antipas all Israel, but the talents and strategies Anitpas would use to effect his 42 years of success were already on display in the interplay of events between Jericho and Caesar's final audience in October of 4 BC. The fact that Antipas played his cards not only well but masterfully, and to maximum possible effect, is clearly evident if one but looks carefully.
In all these ways, Antipas proved himself again and again to be a wise, capable ruler, totally in control during all stages of his career. Barring that final surprise by the constantly unsatisfied Agrippa (whose rise to status was of such complex circumstances as to be unforseable), Antipas literally never made a single wrong move, spanning five decades of considerable change, both in Rome and the east. That no other ruler west of Parthia save Tiberius himself accomplished even nearly such a feat is incredibly impressive.
To even consider that such a man made one huge mistake by thinking with his groin - this not only defies all reasonable expectations, it may also betray a lack of focus on the situation. True, many writers assume Antipas and Sejanus were allied, but serious scholarly justification has yet to be produced, since Hoehner. And given Hennig's near dismissal of the relationship, further treatment seems to be very necessary. As far as I can tell, it has not been done. But if any reader has access to articles or other works I've somehow overlooked, please let me know.
It should also be noted that the argument attempted here, which advances beyond the conclusions of Hoehner's essential volume, is based primarily on the assumption that Antipas' first marriage was in fact an alliance with Nabatea, but this should be undeniable. How often does the ruler of a country marry the neighboring king's daughter and NOT forge a treaty from such an alliance, unless the action sparks a war instead?
My whole contention, then, is that there is no other reasonable way to explain Antipas' divorce of his longtime Arabian bride UNLESS the tetrarch has assurances from Sejanus that King Aretas would have no success in prosecuting the divorce and breach of treaty in Rome. Whether or not Aretas DID make such attempts [which of course, we have no record of] or MIGHT have made such attempts is not actually within the question. The only pertinent fact is that Aretas COULD have made such attempts, and so Antipas would have known to be prepared for that eventuality - especially during the political turmoil of those years, when Tiberius absolutely COULD have been expected to use any complaint as a pretext for claiming all of Galilee. We've already seen that the times were extremely dangerous for Roman nobles and foreign client rulers, equally. Without a deal before his divorce, Herod Antipas would have risked everything against the very large probability that Tiberius - sooner or later - WOULD take it from him.
Simply put, Herod Antipas was not such a man to take such a risk. Therefore, he must have felt there was no risk. Naturally, the only reliable barrier to any complaints from Aretas would have been Sejanus.
That is why Antipas simply must have made a deal with Sejanus.
The question of what Sejanus expected to get out of that deal is another issue for further study, but it may have something to do with (1) the military situation in the East [Tiberius was already keeping Lamia from the Syrian Legions and would not have allowed Sejanus anywhere near the Egyptian ones], (2) the proximity of Galilee to Rome's breadbasket (Egypt) and (3) the enormous cache of armor and weaponry Agrippa cited. So this armor - which Antipas did not deny the existence of, which Agrippa had the greatest opportunity to observe during his 'mooching' years from 29 to 32 AD, and which no one of Antipas' meager resources could have assembled (secretly) in any short period of time - may be precisely what Sejanus expected to receive from Antipas.
Of course, this final question must rest until a fuller treatment may be given. In fact, it may not be possible to conclude what, if anything, Sejanus would have expected from Antipas. It's even possible Sejanus would make such an alliance merely for unspecified favors to be named at some future time. But the armor creation as one step toward a military contingency plan is not entirely implausible, showing at least one reason why that the whole alliance is far from implausible from Sejanus' perspective.
Again, we may never know entirely all the reasons WHY Sejanus or Antipas made their alliance, but for all the reasons discussed here above, they simply must have done so.
----------------------------------------------
Now, hopefully, someone more qualified than Bill Heroman will eventually level their scholarly efforts towards examining these claims and considerations with more academic rigor. But this is my contribution.
In the meantime, I will of course continue striving to improve my own efforts...
Got a job today
[Audio: Forest Gump Voice] Which means we don't have to worry about money no more. Which is great. You know - one less thing. [/Gump]
So that's the big news. Oh, plus I'm addicted to Google Reader. Yeah, addicted. I mean, those scholar blogs have been helpful and great, but when strings of 4 and 5 syllable words start rolling off my tongue at our family dinner table... whoo, baby. It's time to pull back juuuuust a bit. Besides, it's summer. And I've been saying for two months I need to focus on Tacitus & Dio.
Time to put up AND shut up.
Well, maybe juuuuust a bit. ;)
So that's the big news. Oh, plus I'm addicted to Google Reader. Yeah, addicted. I mean, those scholar blogs have been helpful and great, but when strings of 4 and 5 syllable words start rolling off my tongue at our family dinner table... whoo, baby. It's time to pull back juuuuust a bit. Besides, it's summer. And I've been saying for two months I need to focus on Tacitus & Dio.
Time to put up AND shut up.
Well, maybe juuuuust a bit. ;)
Recent Studies (2)
I STILL need to go focus on my project for a while... but I also really NEED some serious scholarly feedback. The topics below are old and new research, that I've posted on recently.
* Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem only after Herod's son Archelaus got exiled. And if Jesus was 12 in March of 7 AD, then His birth was as early as April/May of 7 BC. (Scan Thread)
* Herod's Temple was built in four phases: (1)Prep-work (as much as two years worth), (2)Pre-4 BC (when it burned down), (3)Post-4 BC (a slower rebuilding phase), & (4)Paving the Courtyard (under Agrippa II, after ~30 years of no building). (Scan Thread)
* Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist around late February of 31 AD, about 8 months before Sejanus died. The mixture of political reactions to these two deaths made Antipas extra cautious as a governor, for a time, and helped motivate his refusal to claim jurisdiction over Jesus from Pilate on Good Friday (4/3/33). (Scan Thread)
* Paul fled Damascus in 34 AD and again in 36 AD - by the same trick because the Damascene brothers were pleased with how well the trick worked the first time! The history and chronology are discussed in detail. By the way, in Arabia, Paul may well have had a "Moses Moment" with God, up on Mount Nebo. (Scan Thread)
* My working hypothesis on Gospel Origins (Matt/Mark/Luke) was posted in summary yesterday. It's fresh, so I can't swear it's extremely unique, but I've done it my way, which is to come at things from a standpoint of reconstructing chronological and logistical plausibility.
Please leave a comment on any post, no matter how old. Or e-mail billheroman 'at' gmail 'dotcom'.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you...
* Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem only after Herod's son Archelaus got exiled. And if Jesus was 12 in March of 7 AD, then His birth was as early as April/May of 7 BC. (Scan Thread)
* Herod's Temple was built in four phases: (1)Prep-work (as much as two years worth), (2)Pre-4 BC (when it burned down), (3)Post-4 BC (a slower rebuilding phase), & (4)Paving the Courtyard (under Agrippa II, after ~30 years of no building). (Scan Thread)
* Herod Antipas killed John the Baptist around late February of 31 AD, about 8 months before Sejanus died. The mixture of political reactions to these two deaths made Antipas extra cautious as a governor, for a time, and helped motivate his refusal to claim jurisdiction over Jesus from Pilate on Good Friday (4/3/33). (Scan Thread)
* Paul fled Damascus in 34 AD and again in 36 AD - by the same trick because the Damascene brothers were pleased with how well the trick worked the first time! The history and chronology are discussed in detail. By the way, in Arabia, Paul may well have had a "Moses Moment" with God, up on Mount Nebo. (Scan Thread)
* My working hypothesis on Gospel Origins (Matt/Mark/Luke) was posted in summary yesterday. It's fresh, so I can't swear it's extremely unique, but I've done it my way, which is to come at things from a standpoint of reconstructing chronological and logistical plausibility.
Please leave a comment on any post, no matter how old. Or e-mail billheroman 'at' gmail 'dotcom'.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you...
BS Carnival #30
My thanks to Tyler Williams who was gracious enough to include me in his round up of Bibliobloging from May. You can check out the entire "Biblical Studies Carnival XXX" over at Tyler's site.
Now if I can just get some serious feedback on what I wrote, it'll be worth it! :)
Many thanks again to Tyler and to all who blog about Biblical Studies.
Now if I can just get some serious feedback on what I wrote, it'll be worth it! :)
Many thanks again to Tyler and to all who blog about Biblical Studies.
Matthew Kept Notes
After a month of investigation, here is my working hypothesis on what's called "the synoptic problem". This is how I suspect the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew were composed.
In one sentence: Matthew took notes during Jesus' ministry, which Mark and Luke used to write their gospels (in turn) before Matthew finally used his own notes (and other sources) to compose his full Gospel.
Now here is the shortest summary I can write about how that might have happened in real life:
---------------------------------------
From 30 to 33 AD, Matthew took notes during Jesus’ ministry and filled in earlier details by interviewing Jesus and the other disciples. Matthew held onto his notes as a collection for many years and several copies were made. The collection was never well organized, but Matthew felt like it was a good record of the events. He did not modify the form of the collection for nearly thirty years. Matthew did, however, begin to keep private notes about his personal studies of scripture.
From the Resurrection to the Council of Jerusalem (17 years) the early church did not experiment with literary opportunities, other than making some copies of Matthew's notes. Basically, they all thought that was more than enough. But when Jerusalem decided to send a letter to all Gentile churches, at least three men were suddenly inspired to think about the power of literature. One of them was Mark.
Between 50 and 53 AD, Mark got a copy of Matthew’s notes and sat down with Peter. Peter gave Mark extra details and supplied the basic sequence of events. Mark chose to keep things tight and skipped over many of the longer sections on Jesus’ words and teachings. But Mark also put in anything Peter wanted to add, including a few stories from Peter's own memory.
In the mid-50's AD, certain Pharisees had been persuaded to believe in Jesus’ teachings, but not his sacrifice or resurrection. Some of these men used copies of Matthew’s notes AND copies of Mark’s Gospel to begin composing their own “sayings gospels”. A few copies of these were being passed around Israel by 57 AD or shortly after.
In 57 AD, after Paul’s arrest, Luke decided to write a defense of Paul and of Jesus, “whom Paul was preaching”. Luke quickly learned that many others had begun to write accounts of Jesus’ life and/or teachings – though not all who began such a task had completed it.
Luke got a copy of Matthew’s notes AND a copy of Mark’s Gospel. Luke found and read the “sayings gospels” but they did not significantly impact his work. If anything, these collections may be what motivated Luke to expand his writer’s purpose beyond a simple defense of Paul. Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a basic framework but chose to include pieces from Matthew’s notes that Mark had left out, picked over or modified.
Luke also interviewed many eyewitnesses and included snippets about them. Luke’s second “book”, of course, rested almost totally on personal and eyewitness testimony, although Matthew’s notes may have had bits on the very early church in Jerusalem. Luke also made many other decisions about what to include or leave out that each suited his peculiar ambitions for the complex purpose of this unique undertaking.
In many ways, Luke was far more dynamic as a writer/editor than Mark had been. But Matthew was about to prove himself somewhat dynamic as well.
Matthew finally converted his own notes into a complete Gospel sometime after Luke sailed from Caesarea (59 AD). Matthew's main source was his own notes and some new research, including three decades of personal study in the 'Old Testament' scriptures.
Matthew did not rely on Mark's Gospel because it was secondary to his original notes. However, Matthew had certainly seen Mark's gospel and may have been influenced by it in some ways. For one thing, Matthew probably made the deliberate decision to compose a different sort of work. (Otherwise, why publish at all?)
Matthew did not use Luke's Gospel as a source because it wasn't complete yet when Luke sailed out of Judea. But Matthew must have met with Luke at some point. During the two years Luke vigorously sought out both written sources AND eyewitnesses, Matthew was the one man who ranked most highly in BOTH categories! Therefore, assuming Matthew was anywhere in Israel from 57 to 59, he absolutely had to be Luke's chief "get".
So Matthew and Luke got to exchange new research and information not found in Matthew's original notes, such as details about the Herods and the early life of Jesus. They met together at least once. Matthew and Luke could easily have swapped much research on the same topics when certain details were more fitting to one man's goals-in-writing than the other's.
Matthew also had access to some "sayings gospels" but he did not use them as a source. Like Mark's Gospel, they were largely based on Matthew's own notes anyway. However, Matthew did use them as a reference for certain things he wanted to address in specific ways.
Matthew chose to alternate sections of Jesus’ teachings with sections on his life events. The long teachings sections were opportunities to draw in the interest of certain Jews while emphasizing the points Matthew wanted to make. But the sections on Jesus' life were crafted together thematically, to emphasize challenging points about Jesus Himself. Therefore, Matthew was careful not to use too much time-specific language in sections where he knews he was not being chronologically accurate, or where he just wasn't sure.
Matthew had finished his Gospel as early as 60/61 AD. By that time, he was easily more than 50 years old. Old age was partly what gave him the time to finally write and edit such a focused, carefully arranged composition.
Practically speaking, most copies of Matthew's original notes were thrown out as obsolete whenever the copies' owners got copies of the new and improved Gospels. But any surviving copies of Matthew's original notes were probably cannibalized for new "sayings gospels" in years to come, which continued to be popular in certain circles for quite some time.
But the Gospels were and are the best original sources on Jesus Himself.
---------------------------------------
This is my entire working hypothesis for the Origins of Matthew Mark and Luke's three Gospels, so-called as the "Synoptic" Gospels because they share the "same view" of Jesus in many ways.
There are many other considerations, but this is the simplest form I can put these ideas into, today. I'm hoping for some feedback, but I'll continue to do what I can if nobody wants to offer me any.
This is a hypothesis. It must have some problems. Or it might well be perfect.
Either way, now the real work can begin…
In one sentence: Matthew took notes during Jesus' ministry, which Mark and Luke used to write their gospels (in turn) before Matthew finally used his own notes (and other sources) to compose his full Gospel.
Now here is the shortest summary I can write about how that might have happened in real life:
---------------------------------------
From 30 to 33 AD, Matthew took notes during Jesus’ ministry and filled in earlier details by interviewing Jesus and the other disciples. Matthew held onto his notes as a collection for many years and several copies were made. The collection was never well organized, but Matthew felt like it was a good record of the events. He did not modify the form of the collection for nearly thirty years. Matthew did, however, begin to keep private notes about his personal studies of scripture.
From the Resurrection to the Council of Jerusalem (17 years) the early church did not experiment with literary opportunities, other than making some copies of Matthew's notes. Basically, they all thought that was more than enough. But when Jerusalem decided to send a letter to all Gentile churches, at least three men were suddenly inspired to think about the power of literature. One of them was Mark.
Between 50 and 53 AD, Mark got a copy of Matthew’s notes and sat down with Peter. Peter gave Mark extra details and supplied the basic sequence of events. Mark chose to keep things tight and skipped over many of the longer sections on Jesus’ words and teachings. But Mark also put in anything Peter wanted to add, including a few stories from Peter's own memory.
In the mid-50's AD, certain Pharisees had been persuaded to believe in Jesus’ teachings, but not his sacrifice or resurrection. Some of these men used copies of Matthew’s notes AND copies of Mark’s Gospel to begin composing their own “sayings gospels”. A few copies of these were being passed around Israel by 57 AD or shortly after.
In 57 AD, after Paul’s arrest, Luke decided to write a defense of Paul and of Jesus, “whom Paul was preaching”. Luke quickly learned that many others had begun to write accounts of Jesus’ life and/or teachings – though not all who began such a task had completed it.
Luke got a copy of Matthew’s notes AND a copy of Mark’s Gospel. Luke found and read the “sayings gospels” but they did not significantly impact his work. If anything, these collections may be what motivated Luke to expand his writer’s purpose beyond a simple defense of Paul. Luke used Mark’s Gospel as a basic framework but chose to include pieces from Matthew’s notes that Mark had left out, picked over or modified.
Luke also interviewed many eyewitnesses and included snippets about them. Luke’s second “book”, of course, rested almost totally on personal and eyewitness testimony, although Matthew’s notes may have had bits on the very early church in Jerusalem. Luke also made many other decisions about what to include or leave out that each suited his peculiar ambitions for the complex purpose of this unique undertaking.
In many ways, Luke was far more dynamic as a writer/editor than Mark had been. But Matthew was about to prove himself somewhat dynamic as well.
Matthew finally converted his own notes into a complete Gospel sometime after Luke sailed from Caesarea (59 AD). Matthew's main source was his own notes and some new research, including three decades of personal study in the 'Old Testament' scriptures.
Matthew did not rely on Mark's Gospel because it was secondary to his original notes. However, Matthew had certainly seen Mark's gospel and may have been influenced by it in some ways. For one thing, Matthew probably made the deliberate decision to compose a different sort of work. (Otherwise, why publish at all?)
Matthew did not use Luke's Gospel as a source because it wasn't complete yet when Luke sailed out of Judea. But Matthew must have met with Luke at some point. During the two years Luke vigorously sought out both written sources AND eyewitnesses, Matthew was the one man who ranked most highly in BOTH categories! Therefore, assuming Matthew was anywhere in Israel from 57 to 59, he absolutely had to be Luke's chief "get".
So Matthew and Luke got to exchange new research and information not found in Matthew's original notes, such as details about the Herods and the early life of Jesus. They met together at least once. Matthew and Luke could easily have swapped much research on the same topics when certain details were more fitting to one man's goals-in-writing than the other's.
Matthew also had access to some "sayings gospels" but he did not use them as a source. Like Mark's Gospel, they were largely based on Matthew's own notes anyway. However, Matthew did use them as a reference for certain things he wanted to address in specific ways.
Matthew chose to alternate sections of Jesus’ teachings with sections on his life events. The long teachings sections were opportunities to draw in the interest of certain Jews while emphasizing the points Matthew wanted to make. But the sections on Jesus' life were crafted together thematically, to emphasize challenging points about Jesus Himself. Therefore, Matthew was careful not to use too much time-specific language in sections where he knews he was not being chronologically accurate, or where he just wasn't sure.
Matthew had finished his Gospel as early as 60/61 AD. By that time, he was easily more than 50 years old. Old age was partly what gave him the time to finally write and edit such a focused, carefully arranged composition.
Practically speaking, most copies of Matthew's original notes were thrown out as obsolete whenever the copies' owners got copies of the new and improved Gospels. But any surviving copies of Matthew's original notes were probably cannibalized for new "sayings gospels" in years to come, which continued to be popular in certain circles for quite some time.
But the Gospels were and are the best original sources on Jesus Himself.
---------------------------------------
This is my entire working hypothesis for the Origins of Matthew Mark and Luke's three Gospels, so-called as the "Synoptic" Gospels because they share the "same view" of Jesus in many ways.
There are many other considerations, but this is the simplest form I can put these ideas into, today. I'm hoping for some feedback, but I'll continue to do what I can if nobody wants to offer me any.
This is a hypothesis. It must have some problems. Or it might well be perfect.
Either way, now the real work can begin…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Get the NT/History Blog in your Inbox:
Recently Popular
-
The Roman registration of Herod's Kingdom is historically bizarre, and could not have been part of any "worldwide" registration. For Caesar ...
-
It's hard to face facts, but this stuff always takes longer than I wish it would. Then again, a wise woman once told me you can grow a squas...
-
(so called): Did it really exist before Acts 10:45? If it did, it was fully inclusive of all believers in Christ, at that time. Or, to put t...
-
My answer, in 2 paragraphs, an exercise suggested by Brian LePort: After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at leas...
-
My main interest in Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, began in hopes of finding a comparative case study (however minuscule) to make with Hero...
-
They're like BMW commercials, which are primarily on the air so that people who've already bought one can feel good about their expensive p...
-
If we did not have Luke's Gospel, christian tradition would probably hold that both Mary & Joseph were from Bethlehem. In such a parallel u...
-
Chronology on the Roman Empire is much easier to sort through than chronology on the New Testament for one simple reason – because ancient h...
-
Please enjoy this abridged excerpt from four wonderful pages I only wish I had written. May their tribe increase mightily. ----------------...
-
Please review my updated resume, and then give me a call. William J. Heroman, Teacher in Transition billheroman@gmail.com Transit...